I think there may be some truth to that.

But only a little.

Based on my own experience in church, as well as counseling outcome research (i.e. what factors contribute to success in mental health counseling–that’s where the percentages are coming from), I would like to propose the following mini-theory of the four main factors that contribute to the vibrance/dullness/spirituality of our meetings. The percentages aren’t that important as the actual factors though…

Factor #1: The Individual Members (40%)

This includes each individual member (including leaders) and what they bring to the table: their backgrounds, viewpoints, attitudes, individual preparation, chance events in their lives, etc. In a sense, if you don’t have a good experience at a church meeting, you (or just your life or circumstances) may be at least 40% responsible for that outcome. Seems reasonable to me. How prepared are you for the meetings? How prepared are you to receive spiritual promptings or experiences? How prepared are the speakers and teachers? A lot of us can improve on this.

Factor #2: Relationships (30%)

This includes the relationships between the leaders and regular members, and individual friendships in the ward. I know I tend to listen a lot more earnestly (and have better experiences) when a close friend is speaking or giving the lesson. Not that we all need to have close friendships with everyone in the ward, but I believe the better our relationships are, the better our meetings will be. We listen and participate more when we care more. Do we truly have empathy and respect for other people in the ward? Relationships also include a general agreement on the tasks and goals of our meetings.

Factor #3: Techniques (15%)

This is the area that I think gets debated the most, perhaps because it stands out the most: Simplified Gospel Principles manual? Do we have to stick to that? What hymns are we singing? How many? How many talks? What kinds of instruments are allowed? White or blue shirts? Snacks or no snacks in primary? PowerPoint in gospel doctrine? The point here is not that any one of these decisions is necessarily better than other, but to suggest that ultimately whether we decide to allow guitars or harmonicas, ban blue shirts from the sacrament table or ban visual aids from the pulpit, it will not have much influence on the overall outcome. Most techniques or teaching methods that are intended to be edifying will be, equally so.

Factor #4: Faith & Hope (15%)

How much do we really expect out of our meetings? Do we expect to receive spiritual guidance? Do we find hope there?

We get caught up in debates about who is to blame for our meetings. I personally believe that God has granted us the agency to have bad meetings, just as we can exercise our agency to make them great. Let’s be mindful of the various factors that may contribute to the outcomes of our meetings, and what our individual and collective roles are. Let’s make sure WE are prepared when we speak, give lessons, or participate in the music. Let’s work harder at building relationships in our wards, beyond the home-teaching assignment or the sometimes shallow greetings of the ward activity. Let’s put debates about specific techniques in their place–important, but not as much as other factors.

Using this mini-theory, it makes perfect sense why some people, non-members, ex-mormons, and even some active members alike would find the meetings to be boring: They may not be prepared themselves or be a type of person who would enjoy the meetings anyway, they may not have decent relationships with ward members (or may even have poor relationships there), and they may have little hope or expectation in the church. OF COURSE that is going to lead to a generally dull or even negative experience.

• What do you think contributes to a successful and/or spiritual church meeting?
• How much of it is on the individual and how much is on the speaker or teacher, or the institution of the church?
• What do you think of the idea that we are all contributors to our collective experience?
• Do we neglect the powerful influence that interpersonal relationships have on our meetings?

Bandura explains how these external forces influence us and our agency: “Personal agency operates within a network of sociostructural influences. In these agentic transactions, people are producers as well as products of social systems.” He adds that while some psychologists in the past have viewed behavior as being automatically controlled by the environment, a more accurate view combines environmental influence, and “agentic action” in one’s environment. This seems more in line with the gospel.

Our environments (and the choices of people around us) make certain values, abilities, or even personal choices more or less likely. For example, I am currently training in a method of family therapy with adolescent and adult offenders (usually at least one family member is on probation) and their families. One of our first major goals with a family is to reduce blame by creating a “family focus” on the problem, rather than assigning blame to individual members (which they’re all SO good at). The relational patterns of interaction in the family make certain behaviors (e.g. punching the principal, or trafficking cocaine) more likely to occur. (As an aside–the therapy works. About half of these adolescents have a huge drop in recidivism. Those who do re-offend usually commit less crimes, which are less severe.)

I have talked many people who seem to use the concept of agency as a way to write other people off. “Well, that kid may have had a hard life, but he is responsible for his actions.” Well, kind of. Yes, we are responsible for our actions, but when we evaluate ourselves and (hopefully not too much) others, we need to be mindful of myriad other factors that are involved.

The “True to the Faith” booklet says: “You are responsible for the decisions you make. You should not blame your circumstances, your family, or your friends if you choose to disobey God’s commandments. You have the ability to choose righteousness and happiness, regardless of your circumstances.” I completely agree – blaming others is not useful. At the same time, I have seen people use this doctrine of not blaming others as a way to blame others. For example, one spouse said about the other (I’m paraphrasing here), “she CHOOSES to be upset and angry and to be afraid and to withdraw from me, so there’s nothing I can do about it.” Of course, she chooses, but he did not realize the powerful influence he was having on her that would make it more likely that she would feel these negative emotions. In other words, when we dismiss others due to their poor choices, we often are blaming them.

Let us not blame others for our actions, and let us not blame others 100% for their actions either. We don’t know what forces have influenced their lives. Many of us also need to stop blaming ourselves for what happens in our lives. In therapy, this is often just as big of a problem as always blaming others.

So, to what extent are we accountable?

“That every many may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” – D&C 101

I think our “own sins” refers to our individual agency. We will NOT be accountable for the choices our neighbors, friends, parents, family, or community make. Those choices still affect our agency a great deal though. Bandura refers to the choices of others that have control over our lives as “proxy” agency. Some things that come to mind here are the choices of Adam and Eve, baptism for the dead (by proxy), and choices of our parents, spouses, or even church leaders in some cases. We rely on many people to make things happen for us. We are also responsible to make things happen for others. The Atonement is the best example of proxy agency. We cannot overcome the effects of sin and death. We are not agents in this sense. We have to rely on the agency of a Savior.

The other form is “collective” agency. We rely on the community at large to make certain things happen. For example, I do not have the agency to make my graduation happen all by myself. I am only responsible (read: agentic) for what I have control over. I have to try to get others (e.g. advisors, administrators, etc.) to use their agency in my behalf. The church (or even a ward) as a whole is another example of how collective agency is used. What we achieve as a church is “the product not only of the shared intentions, knowledge, and skills” of the members, “but also of the interactive, coordinated, and synergistic dynamics” of our interactions.

Another observation I had on this topic was that I think many of us give up our agency by shunning responsibility. I have seen some people put everything on God in terms of big choices in their lives, while not using their own intellect in the process. In a sense, by ascribing things 100% to God, one is in a sense blaming (read: attributing responsibility) God for what happens, whether good or bad. I think following leaders blindly without thought and prayer is another way we give up our agency. We have a mind and a heart, and God wants us to use both of them. Don’t confuse trusting God with putting the responsibility on him. Perhaps we do this because it is easier or more comfortable to surrender our responsibility.

In sum, we don’t have the ability to choose anything, in every situation. Often we must rely on others to exercise their agency in our behalf. That is why the choices we make that affect others are SO important. If one should get married, and when. Deciding if and when to have children. How we parent our children. If and how we help the poor and the needy. Whether or not we indulge in whatever our favorite sin may be.

May we have the courage to be accurate in taking responsibility for our choices, and understanding of others who may not have been dealt the same cards in life that we have.

Reference: Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.

Latter-day Saints do not profess a belief in the infallibility of their leaders. President James E. Faust wrote this, “We make no claim of individual infallibility or perfection as the prophets, seers, and revelators. (James E. Faust, “Continuing Revelation,” Ensign, Aug 1996, 2).  And while the Church does not express that the leaders themselves are infallible like the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility, there is an expectation they will lead us in the right direction according to the mind and will of the Lord and in harmony with the Scriptures.

President Erza Taft Benson wrote, “The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet,” Tambuli, Jun 1981, 1). This was not a new concept originating with President, then Elder Benson. It has been taught since the days of Joseph Smith.

But, how do we know when we need to heed the words of the Prophet and when it is simply good advice and counsel.  Just when is a prophet acting as such?

The simple answer is that he is acting as a Prophet when moved upon by the Holy Ghost. “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.” (Doctrine and Covenants 68:4)

However, how do WE know?  Again, the simple answer is in the same way. The Holy Ghost must testify to us of the truthfulness of the words spoken. Sounds simple enough?  It’s not.

For some of us, we struggle with this concept and its application. In some cases, we simply do not have the faith to believe. In other cases, we have not trained ourselves to hear that testimony. Perhaps in other cases, it just does not come. Maybe, it IS just good advice? Or maybe, it’s bad advice?

We are required to pray and ask for a confirmation of the truthfulness of the statements of the Prophets to us.  “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. “(Doctrine and Covenants Section 9:8).

Frankly, I’ve never had a burning in the bosom except for heartburn, but I also recognize that that expression is a metaphor for the feeling I do get when I’ve made that step or feel that I am under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Some members do not need to make that step and receive confirmation. Perhaps, they receive an instantaneous witness of the truth. Or, perhaps they are acting as the President Brigham Young warned,

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1941], 135).

And yet, while we have many members of the Church who would blindly follow their leaders without inquiring of God for themselves, they are also more willing to overlook individual foibles of the same leaders, past and present.

The polygamy practices of Joseph Smith, the past racist statements of some Church Leaders, and the inconsistent telling of Church History, to name a few, do not bother them.  They trust the explanation of the leaders and the Church.

On the other hand, there are those in the Church who are really bothered by those things, and seem to have a hard time reconciling the actions of those leaders with their prophetic mantle. In other words, if those leaders are so in tune with the Lord, they should have known better than to do and say those things?  Infallible?

Could it be that those members actually hold them to a higher standard than the rank and file member?

President Wilford Woodruff and others taught that the Lord would never let the Prophet lead the Church astray. I believe that. I also believe the members of the Church would also not permit it.

The Prophet is not infallible and we do not hold to that idea. He is a man, like every other man, imperfect and capable of error.  We love him and sustain him and recognize his authority to counsel and instruct us, lead us and guide us.

We do not follow blindly, but ask for confirmation of the truthfulness of his words. We sometimes struggle with following that counsel, but hopefully, we are better off for it.

Follow the Prophet

A scripture in the Doctrine & Covenants encourages us to “be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of [our] own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.”  But I’ve noticed that there is a concept that is widespread in the LDS Church which tends to limit our engagement in good causes and even, on occasion, the righteous seeking of revelation.  This is the idea of stewardship.

When I was a young mother living in Hawaii, an elderly neighbor invited me and another ward member over to her house for lunch.  While we were there, she presented us with a proposal.  She had noticed there were many needs in our ward and in our immediate neighborhood, and she suggested that we get together on Friday mornings to pray.  She hoped that we might also be able to help with some of the needs in a tangible way, but the main focus was to be on prayer and petitioning the Lord for divine assistance.  I thought this was a great idea and was excited to be a part of it.  We did this for about a year until our family moved away.  But a damper was put on the project the first Friday morning we started, for the other woman who had been invited had declined to join us.  She told my elderly neighbor that she felt uncomfortable praying for others in our ward, since we were not part of the Relief Society Presidency, and it wasn’t our stewardship so to do.

This idea is presented in the OT SS Manual along with the story in Numbers 12.  First, let us examine the scripture passage.  Moses marries a Cushite woman, and Miriam and Aaron are perturbed.  We don’t know exactly why.  Moses’ wife Zipporah was the daughter of a Midianite, so either she had died and Moses remarried, or the Cushite woman was a second wife.  There is no evidence that the Lord had commanded the Hebrews not to marry women from other nations, as he did later when they moved into the land of Canaan.  If he gave this command earlier it may have been the reason for his siblings’ objection.  In any case, the next verse gives a clue that because of this marriage a challenge to Moses’ authority as a prophet was involved. “Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses?” they asked.  ”Hath he not spoken also by us?”

The Lord HAD spoken to Miriam and Aaron in the past.  He spoke to the people through Aaron in Exodus 4:30; He spoke to Aaron in Exodus 12:1; Miriam herself spoke words inspired by God in Exodus 15:21.  But when they challenged Moses, they were reprimanded.  The Lord called all three of them together, came down in a pillar of the cloud, and rebuked Miriam and Aaron for their affront. Then he afflicted Miriam with leprosy.

<feminist rant> Why was Miriam punished and not Aaron?  Some say that she was the instigator because she was named first. But it seems clear by the use of the plural form “we” throughout the passage, that both were equally involved.  Aaron confesses “we have done foolishly, and… we have sinned.”  I find it appalling that Miriam was made to bear the sole punishment for this transgression.  One commentary explains: “Had he [Aaron] been smitten with the leprosy, his sacred character must have greatly suffered, and perhaps the priesthood itself have fallen into contempt.”    There seems to have been one ancient tradition that taught Aaron was also struck with leprosy. According to that tradition, the Torah does not explicitly mention Aaron’s punishment out of respect for the office of the high priest. Instead, Aaron’s punishment was edited out of the record but remembered nonetheless. Rabbi Yehudah warned that “Anyone who says that Aaron was also smitten with leprosy will have to give an account [in heaven]. When God has concealed the matter concerning Aaron [how dare we reveal it?]”

Our SS lesson engages the story of Miriam and Aaron by asking the question:  What are the limits to our right to receive revelation?

The LDS concept of stewardship involves the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one’s care.  Bishops are said to have stewardship over the people in their wards, and fathers over their families.  If we have stewardship over a group of people, we may receive revelation regarding how to manage those under our care.  But we are cautioned that the revelation does not extend to those outside our sphere of influence.  The manual includes the following quotation:

• Elder James E. Faust said: “The prophets, seers, and revelators have had and still have the responsibility and privilege of receiving and declaring the word of God for the world. Individual members, parents, and leaders have the right to receive revelation for their own responsibility but have no duty nor right to declare the word of God beyond the limits of their own responsibility” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1989, 9; or Ensign, Nov. 1989, 8).

As I read the manual, I wondered if the story of Miriam and Aaron really had much to do with the modern concept of stewardship.  Do you think it is a stretch to equate Miriam and Aaron’s questioning of Moses’ authority with members’ right to “declare the word of God?”  Do you think this might discourage members without leadership callings to “be anxiously engaged in a good cause,” and “bring to pass much righteousness?”

But I want to give credit where credit is due. If you have not seen the church’s new Combating Pornography website, may I suggest you check it out. It is not just for those struggling with the addiction of pornography (yes, I said addiction), but for spouses of those struggling, parents, leaders, etc. I think everyone could glean some useful insight about an epidemic that has proved to invade nearly every life in one way or another.

In short, I think the site is brilliant, and I give much kudos to the church for the content and purpose. I really think it’s great! Here’s what I like about it:

1. The star article (IMHO) is a well researched, well documented, elaboration on the nature of pornography addiction, by a renowned expert in the field. The second to last paragraph is my favorite:
   

   Why is it important to understand that compulsive pornography use is an actual addiction? By recognizing this, we will treat it with the respect required to overcome an addiction. For instance, no spiritual leader would tell a member who confesses an alcohol addiction to pray and repent without recommending counseling and 12-step support in such programs as the Addiction Recovery Program with LDS Family Services and Alcoholics Anonymous. Similarly, with the proper perspective on sexual addiction, we should also recommend that those afflicted with pornography and other sexual addictions, in addition to proceeding through the steps of repentance, will also seek recovery with therapy and group support.

2. The site references sources and scholarship about overcoming pornography. While I am not a social worker, or clinical psychologist, I recognize the most commonly accepted patterns in treating addiction/depression. See here, and here for great examples.
3. There is practical advice in Mormonism’s favorite form – a checklist.
4. There is a good mix of emphasis on moral cleanliness, openness in discussing human sexuality, physical reality, and spiritual ideology. When I read the articles I get the impression that we’re not in the business of simply condemning this as sin and parroting to people they “pray and read scriptures” more diligently. We are acknowledging a deeper problem in human psychology/biology that warrants our most sincere efforts.
5. The church is sincerely dedicated to helping people with this problem. There are conference talks (at least one every six months), there is a website, there are very inexpensive counselling and other professional services, there is a booklet and associated meetings for overcoming addiction, etc.

I really do believe that the LDS church does a lot of great things in this world. There are people who are hurt by the culture, there are social and cultural problems I wish were different, and there are issues in our theology that don’t work for me. But for this very uncertain Mormon, I am truly grateful to be a part of an organization that does try, in many ways, to influence people for the better.

I’m 1/16 th Chippewa and don’t even look a little Indian! I figure from my knee down is pure Chippewa and  for whatever reason  I am pretty proud of that. In the afterlife if possible I would like that section preserved if God sees fit.  Below is my Great Grandmother and Grandmother — you can see even from one generation to the next how things change.

I would also like to see my ancestors who are pure Chippewa with all their beautiful dark skin and get to know them as they were living on the earth before God changes their skin colour to white.

We have met an Elder who the sisters of all ages seem to swoon over — he is half Tongan and half Hawaiian. There is no other way to put it but he is a lady killer! We discussed this subject, and it doesn’t seem to bother him if the doctrine does literally mean white and not pure.  He doesn’t mind if he becomes white in the afterlife. It seems to disturb me more than it does him. It’s something he and his family have come to grips with.

I guess I better get down to what has caused my dissonance.   Here are some statements by the prophets about a Book of Mormon passage found in 2 Nephi 30:6 regarding a change Lamanites would experience if they embraced the Book of Mormon.  In every edition save one (1840), the words “white and delightsome” were used.  In the 1981 edition, the editors reverted to the 1840 edition’s “pure and delightsome” wording.

Prophet Statements

President Brigham Young
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” (Journal of Discourses 7:336)

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith:

“It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’” In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives.” (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52)

Apostle Spencer W. Kimball

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967)

2 Nephi 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

3 Nephi 2:12-15 teaches that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

“White” versus “Pure” (Maxwell Institute)

According to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discussed the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants: “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6). In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator,” Joseph Smith, and in that edition the expression “white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to racial changes rather than to changes in righteousness. Possibly his sojourns in Ohio and Missouri had altered his perspective of the racial connotations of the term white in the contemporary United States, particularly among slaves and slaveholders. He may not have gained much understanding of this matter during his upbringing in New England and New York State, where slavery was not as common.

Unfortunately for subsequent Latter-day Saint interpreters, following the Prophet’s death the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent printings, which were instead based on an edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain after a copy of an earlier edition. The apostles, being in England, were not familiar with the 1840 edition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.  Some critics have been fond of citing statements of earlier Latter-day Saint leaders, who once interpreted 2 Nephi 30:6 to mean that conversion leads to a change of skin color; however, to use such statements today is anachronistic at best and disingenuous at worst since these statements were all expressed previous to the 1981 correction and merely echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than the authoritative text itself. Moreover, a change in Lamanite skin color was clearly never intended by the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the Prophet Joseph modified because it does not refer to the Lamanites at all, but to the Nephites and Jews in the latter days who turn to Christ (see 2 Nephi 30:1—7).

But is the Prophet’s change from “white” to “pure” justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6). Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope that the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people” (Words of Mormon 1:8).

Poll

[poll id ="146"]

[poll id = "148"]

[poll id = "149"]

[poll id = "150"]

Where I have dissonance or questions

1. Is from how I understand the Book of Mormon and statements of past prophets contradict our view of it being pure today.
2. There has been no church conference talk that I am aware of clarifying the teachings of the past prophets i.e. President Kimball white vs pure. Many members I would suggest aren’t clear on our past beliefs and our current progressive belief on pure.
3. If these were president Kimball’s own personal views why haven’t the church come out with a statement expounding on this?
4. As a church, are we resolute that this was a clarification of the word white — never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would turn white upon a conversion to the gospel; but referring to a cleaner state of heart? This hypothesis in my mind fails to make clear other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. See, for example, 2 Nephi 5:21 as well as past prophet statements.
5. Why did it take God 140 years to clarify this misunderstanding?
6. If we quote what President Kimball said in 1967 conference would we be considered anachronistic today?
7. Is FARMS saying Apostle Kimball’s views are out of date , old fashioned, obsolete?

I want to take a very different look at it by explaining the Top Ten Reasons I can think of to view it – and the Top Ten alternatives for me personally.  This post is not primarily a religious one; rather, it is a practical one.

First, I believe we don’t address the practical aspect of time prioritization nearly enough when we discuss things like what we watch.  If I were asked to give a General Conference talk on porn (as if that is even a remote possibility!), I would focus on the practical aspect of time management – and not deal at all with the “morality” question. 

I did some simple math, with which I won’t bore you here, and when I factor out sleep, work and my own direct, minimal, church-related commitments I am left with approximately 65 hours each week to accomplish all the things I want to do.  Roughly 30 of these hours are on Saturday and Sunday; roughly 35 of them are during the weekdays.  Therefore, I want to address viewing porn in the context of what I need to choose not to do in order to choose to view it during the time I am able to choose what I do. 

In that vein, I offer the following:

TOP TEN REASONS FOR ME TO VIEW PORN

1. To gain a better understanding of the technical aspects of sex.  (Granted, I also have been told that the vast majority of the billions of available hours of porn covers technical aspects of sex that could be covered very well in no more than an hour or two, but what better way is there, really?) 

2. To gain a better understanding of how to please my spouse.  (Although I’ve been told the vast majority of the billions of available hours of porn has nothing to do with sex with one’s spouse.)

3. To learn to appreciate impossibly large anatomy.  (I can’t add “God-given” to that reason, but I’m trying to make this a Top Ten list.) 

4. To show my support for agency and unfettered expression of personal moral choice.  (I’ve heard this one, so I’m passing it on.)

OK.  I give up.  The rest of you are going to have to fill in the final six spots. 

TOP TEN ALTERNATIVES TO VIEWING PORN

[In response to Ulysseus in comment #25, I am adding a very serious suggestion as an alternative at the top of this list: **Seek counseling and help with sexual issues, including the use of truly instructional materials.**]

1. Spend more time with my wife and children.  (This might affect #5, I realize – and I already spend quite a lot of time with them.) 

2. Spend more time in nature, even if it’s just walking around the small town in which I currently live.  (This might be a re-statement of #1, since I don’t like to walk alone just for relaxation.) 

3. Spend more time with friends and neighbors.  (I like interacting with others, but on a practical level I can be too much of a hermit on a day-to-day basis.)

4. Spend more time helping the helpless and lonely.  (I really should do this, regardless of how it affects #5.) 

5. Spend more time blogging.  (OK, increased blogging is a stretch for me – or at least it couldn’t have been on my list before last summer.) 

6. Spend more time learning through reading.  (There are many millions of good books I haven’t read.  Some of them have to be a better use of my time than porn.) 

7. Spend more time reading brain candy.  (ibid – and if it’s a choice between reading and porn, “The Work and the Glory” might be a better alternative.  Maybe.  I’ll have to think about it – but there are lots of other choices that aren’t so hard.) 

8. Learn a new skill.  (I really shouldn’t have to pay a mechanic to fix even the simplest things that go wrong with our vehicles and computers – especially since my dad and brothers are very good at doing both of these things.) 

9. Play more practical jokes on people.  (I am pretty good at this, but my practical joke muscles have atrophied a bit lately.  I really should practice more.)

10.  Clean my house on my own initiative.  (OK, this is limited by what my wife will allow me to do, but it is something to which I really should give a higher priority.) 

Some things I thought of including on the alternatives list:

1. Mow my lawn before it reaches 8″ in height.  That might cut down on the dirty looks my neighbors give me on a regular basis.  (“Dirty” as in “mad” – not “dirty” as in “pornographic”.  Just sayin’.)

2. Exercise.  If you know me, you’ll understand how good that would be as an alternative.   You’d also understand why the dirty looks I get are not pornographic.  Maybe I could combine #1 and #2.  Maybe that tendency to combine things is why I need to exercise more often.  

3. Sleep more.  I really should do that, but I don’t see it happening any time soon. 

4. Get a tan.  Again, if you’ve seen me . . .

5. Play the piano more often.  This probably should be on my list, but I just thought of it.  I’ll make it a retroactive 1a. 

6. Become fluent in Japanese again.  I really should do this, as well. 

So, everyone, I am NOT asking anyone to comment on the morality of viewing porn.  What I am asking for are good reasons to view porn in light of what you are giving up to view it – and for more suggestions of things that are better alterntaives to porn for you personally. 

Have at it.

It is not intentional.  In fact, I have, and would still call myself a feminist.  What are my qualifications for such a preposterous claim?  Well, first I wholeheartedly support equal rights and opportunities for women in all forms within a society.  Second, I was raised by feminist (then-single) Mormon housewife/full-time teacher.  Third, I have studied, support and work with feminist theory and research in my University education.  Fourth, I try to support my wife in her decisions regarding being a working-mum or SAHM.

Yet, none of this did not help realise something.  Lisa described this way, ‘When I got married I really thought that we would be equal partners, and we were.  We really were.  He did as much of the housework as I did, we both worked, we both made money… But as soon as I had a baby I was just shocked at how my world changed and how there was no equality anymore.  I was shocked of how much of that burden fell on me.’

From a different perspective Reese Dixon both glories and laments being able to have only one ‘role’; that of being a mother.

I guess I have failed to see how our relationship is becoming more unequal.  It started out great, I think.  She worked while I was at School and I did the majority of the housework and the cooking.  Shortly after I was married I was called to a position that meant I was out a few evenings of the week; and then things began to change.  A short time later, my calling changed, and I was out more.  We moved, but I kept the same calling, had a baby and I graduated.  We managed that ok, I was home a lot and tried to make sure I would regularly share the different responsibilities.  I was home most of the time during the day and I could do that.  My wife returned to work and I looked after our baby and began my post-graduate study.

Just over a year ago, my calling changed again.  Now I was out nearly every evening and my studies required more time.  We got pregnant again and I began teaching.  Finally another baby arrived.

Recently, there are some weeks that I never cook and rarely clean.  Though I home, I work and so I see the kids but I don’t always get time with them and sometimes I rarely change nappies or help feed.

Now, some might be thinking that if this is how we balance the responsibilities then that is fine.  The issue here is that I am unhappy with this and so is my wife.  The issue is that it is easier for me to allow this pattern to continue and I don’t like that about myself.

It is apparent that the systemic sexism in both the Church and the UK has made it easy for me to live out a patriarchal (not in a good way) existence by drawing me into the public sphere while simultaneously requiring that my wife live her life in private sphere.  That requirement is disseminated through the subtle, pernicious and quiet expectation that my wife will support me in my responsibilities.

I have need to repent for choosing to be acted upon rather than to act against the tide of these social influences.

Differences in religious belief can be the death knell to a marriage. For that reason, many organized religions strongly advocate against being “yoked with unbelievers”. This is not only a Mormon phenomenon; you see this in any faith tradition that teaches that they alone have exclusive access to God. Even before marriage, it is rare for the unmarried, devout Mormon to even consider dating (let alone marrying) a non-Mormon; most LDS women raised in the Church are taught from an early age to make a temple marriage to a returned missionary their primary goal.

Likewise, in the Catholic Church, marriage to any non-Catholic (including Protestants!) is not permitted within a Catholic church building, and is not considered to be a Sacrament. In particularly conservative Catholic cultures, it really is considered a heresy to marry someone not of the (same rite of the) Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Toula refuses to marry Protestant Ian until he joins the Greek Orthodox Church (thus leading to a humorous scene of Ian being baptized).

Similar to Mormon ‘Marriage Prep’ and ‘Temple Prep’ Sunday School courses, dating Catholic couples are required to pursue a several-month course of marriage preparations classes, known as Pre-Cana. Similar to Mormons, Catholics who have pre-marital sexual relations (usually known from the resulting offspring) cannot be married on Catholic church grounds. However, they can have their marriage “convalidated” at a later date, similar to to a family being ‘sealed’ a year after a civil marriage.

I compare these things not so much to indicate how Catholics do things so much as to show just how non-unique Mormons are in many ways with regards to their approach to interfaith marriage.

Disbelief that comes after marriage, however, is harder to deal with. Despite the admonition of Paul in the 1 Corinthians that:

[I]f any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

it is really not all that uncommon to see marriages Mormon temple marriages dissolve once one member of the union loses faith. The same can also be true in Catholic culture, where one of the vows made at the altar is to raise your children Catholic.

A few examples, then, to illustrate some of what I am talking about:

A Mormon female friend of mine (who also happens to be a reader of this blog) attended a non-LDS university for college. Her Patriarchal Blessing was explicit that she was to marry an RM in the temple. When a Baptist schoolmate asked her on a date, she turned him down several times before giving him an ultimatum: She would only go on a date with him if he would read the Book of Mormon and consent to taking the missionary discussions. Confident that the Mormon church was misguided, and that he could show her the error of her ways, he consented. He joined the LDS Church and they two were married in the temple a year later. Obviously, she and the Church would consider this example to be a huge success story; his Baptist family, in contrast, at that time considered their daughter-in-law to be the devil incarnate. (I suspect that they mellowed with time).

Another friend at the same university for four years dated a non-Mormon off and on, and was fairly involved with him physically (although never so far that she needed to go to the Bishop). She loved him and he proposed to her, but since he was not interested in the Church, she said no. Several years later, she met and married a convert of 1 year, in the temple. Another Church success story.

A Jewish friend attended a Jew-friendly university, but did not find a spouse. She later moved to an area in the Midwest that was predominantly Protestant, and met and fell in love with a Protestant. They moved in together, but when her family would call or visit, she threw him out of the house for the weekend. When her parents found out that she was dating this man, they first gave her a series of lectures on being ‘married under the canopy’ and of all that her grandmother had suffered at Auschwitz. They then cut off all verbal communication with her. When the grandmother found out about the boyfriend, she literally suffered a stroke. She broke up with the boyfriend, and later married an Orthodox Jew and was welcomed back into her family.

A Muslim co-worker of my husband’s met and married a Hindi woman. The parents of the Muslim refuse to acknowledge their daughter-in-law, and the parents of the Hindu refuse to call the Muslim by his real name, instead calling him by the Hindi equivalent.

When I married my husband, we were both Mormon, however I had converted to the Church as a young adult. My mother’s side of the family (who are culturally Catholic) refused to speak with my husband at family functions and boycotted our wedding. Indeed, my own marriage might now be considered as an interfaith marriage, with each of us losing our faith in the LDS Church and taking divergent faith paths. I’ve left the LDS Church and now consider myself a post-Mormon liberal Catholic, returning to the faith of my mothers (since Catholicism in America is largely passed down matriarchally). My husband is an agnostic atheist who remains actively Mormon: regularly attending his meetings and ‘magnifying’ his calling, held in the church by the faith of his fathers. My family is urging me to do what my responsibility as a Catholic mother would be: to baptize my son Catholic and raise him in the Catholic Church.

And so it goes, and so it goes. Its remarkable how adherents of all faiths claim that God will only recognize marriage in their church.

Through it all, my husband and I have retained enormous respect for each other and our religious decisions, as well as the effect that those decisions have on our son. I think respect for each other is really the only way such marriages can survive. My husband’s loss of belief was founded in his respect for me: Trusting that my reasoning was sound, he wanted to determine for himself what validity there was in my conclusions. Obviously, we came to different end-points, but part of respect is learning to accept (and even welcome) differences of opinion and conclusion.

My questions for the readership are these:

• What are your stories?
• How can a couple who finds themselves in a Mormon interfaith marriage make the relationship work?
• Is it possible to maintain a believing Mormon/non-believer relationship?
• If so, what components are required?

In one of her videos, the Non-Muslim Hijabi said something like, ‘Don’t just do something because the Koran says so. Find out the reasons for yourself and do it because you feel the benefits.’  One Muslim woman responded, ‘What is wrong with doing it only to show your obedience to God?’

I thought that was a good point, and it was a clarifying moment for me. If I believed I had a reliable source of God’s Word, I’d be all over it, and I would do my best to be obedient to it, trusting that His understanding was greater than mine. I don’t happen to believe that we have a very reliable, literal, Word of God, so I rely on “living a commandment in order to gain a testimony of it.”  I find that all of the Mormon lifestyle teachings have really good, practical reasons behind them. While some people criticize the church as trying to “control” its members with all these rules, I experience the church as trying to protect its members from suffering by giving good counsel on Natural Law.   I appreciate the Mormon sentiment I’ve heard that those of other religions who live the same lifestyle teachings will progress in their spiritual lives because of it.

The Mormon lifestyle teachings seem to be really definitive of Mormonism in a lot of people’s minds. Many non-Mormons know Mormons as “those guys that don’t drink or smoke or even drink coffee”.  People so often assume that those who leave do so because of their relationship with the commandments, rather than their relationship with the theology. This would make sense if you thought the commandments were the hallmark of Mormonism, or at least the hardest part. I do know some people who lost their testimony and then immediately tried all the vices, since there was no longer a reason not to.  So, it does seem like the commandments are the main focus and deciding factor for a lot of people.

I confused people by being an “active” non-member.  One person said to me, “If you attend services and follow the commandments, what else is there? My eyes popped out of my head. But I guess that question makes sense if you assume that following the commandments is a demonstration of faith in the Prophets and the Book of Mormon.  (Which is the “what else”.)

My questions for the reader are:

Do you follow the commandments out of faith and obedience, or because of a personal conviction that they are important to your spiritual growth?  Do you think one reason has greater merit than the other and why?

Are the commandments central to your faith as a Mormon? Are they outdated relics? Control tactics? Unnecessarily rigid guidelines? Or essential tools for your spiritual progress and transformation?

[poll=99]

Many of you in the bloggernacle thrive on having two opposing ideas at once in your head. I have always found that difficult. I have seen many who can’t cope with it at all and have to come to a conclusion one way or the other or their belief system will cave in and their minds will explode.

I have all the best intentions in the world to start a series on cognitive dissonance this year. To start off I have found some quotes from the brethren which seems to be in opposition to each other. I am sure some of you will figure out away in which they are not!

Don’t Think for Yourself!!

“Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the prophets, seers, revelators’ of the church, is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot speak evil of the lord’s annointed… and retain the holy spirit in his heart. This sort of game is Satan’s favorite pastime, and he has practiced it to believing souls since Adam. He {Satan} wins a great victory when he can get members of the church to speak against their leaders and to do their own thinking.”

“When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan–it is God’s Plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is safe. When they give directions, it should mark the end of controversy, God works in no other way. To think otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of God.”

Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section p. 5, May 26, 1945
Also included in the Improvement Era, June 1945 (which was the official church magazine before the Ensign)

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the lord will bless you for it but you don’t need to worry. The lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.”

LDS President Marion G. Romney (of the first presidency), quoting LDS President (and prophet) Heber J. Grant “Conference Report” Oct. 1960 p. 78

—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother’s arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9, p. 289, 1862.

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“When the Prophet speaks the debate is over”.

N. Eldon Tanner, August Ensign 1979, pages 2-3

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“I sat in this tabernacle some years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972, the last general conference before President Smith passed away. He said: ‘There is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, or the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the lord’.”

L. Aldin Porter of the Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies (Ensign, Nov. 1994, p. 63)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“Follow your leaders who have been duly ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not be led astray.”

Boyd K. Packer (General Conference, Oct. 1992; Ensign, Nov. 1992)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray.”

President Wilford Woodruff (considered scripture as it is canonized at the end of the D&C)

Think for Yourself!!

President Joseph F. Smith said, “We talk of obedience, but do we require any man or woman to ignorantly obey the counsels that are given? Do the First Presidency require it? No, never.” (Journal of Discources (JD) 16:248)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Apostle Charles W. Penrose, who would later serve as counselor to President Smith, declared: “President Wilford Woodruff is a man of wisdom and experience, and we respect him, but we do not believe his personal views or utterances are revelations from God; and when ‘Thus saith the Lord’, comes from him, the saints investigate it: they do not shut their eyes and take it down like a pill.” (Millennial Star 54:191)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“And none are required to tamely and blindly submit to a man because he has a portion of the priesthood. We have heard men who hold the priesthood remark, that they would do anything they were told to do by those who presided over them, if they knew it was wrong; but such obedience as this is worse than folly to us; it is slavery in the extreme; and the man who would thus willingly degrade himself should not claim a rank among intelligent beings, until he turns from his folly. A man of God… would despise the idea. Others, in the extreme exercise of their almighty authority have taught that such obedience was necessary, and that no matter what the saints were told to do by their presidents, they should do it without asking any questions. When Elders of Israel will so far indulge in these extreme notions of obedience as to teach them to the people, it is generally because they have it in their minds to do wrong themselves.” (Millennial Star, vol.14 #38, pp. 593-95)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Brigham Young said:

“What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” (JD 9:150)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

“How easy it would be for your leaders to lead you to destruction, unless you actually know the mind and will of the spirit yourselves.” (JD 4:368)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied…Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, ‘If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,’ this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord.” (JD 3:45)

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

“…Now those men, or those women, who know no more about the power of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit, than to be led entirely by another person, suspending their own understanding, and pinning their faith upon another’s sleeve, will never be capable of entering into the celestial glory, to be crowned as they anticipate; they will never be capable of becoming Gods. They cannot rule themselves, to say nothing of ruling others, but they must be dictated to in every trifle, like a child. They cannot control themselves in the least, but James, Peter, or somebody else must control them. They never can become Gods, nor be crowned as rulers with glory, immortality, and eternal lives. They never can hold sceptres of glory, majesty, and power in the celestial kingdom. Who will? Those who are valiant and inspired with the true independence of heaven, who will go forth boldly in the service of their God, leaving others to do as they please, determined to do right, though all mankind besides should take the opposite course. Will this apply to any of you? Your own hearts can answer.” (JD 1:312)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

“President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel [see, for example, verses 9-10: 'If the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing...the punishment of the prophet shall be even as the punishment of him that seeketh unto him.']…said the Lord had declared by the Prophet [Ezekiel], that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church — that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls — applied it to the present state [1842] of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints — said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall — that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith pp. 237-38)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————-

George Q. Cannon, Counselor to three Church Presidents, expressed it thus: “Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a bishop, an apostle, or a president. If you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone;” (Millennial Star 53:658-59, quoted in Gospel Truth, 1:319)

Have you had experiences where you think you have genuinely had bad advice from following your leaders?

Later prophets and apostles trump older ones. How do you think the older ones feel about that?

Have you had times where you had so much on your plate you were glad to let someone think for you and it worked out for the best?

Should we think for ourselves in the church or should we let the Brethren think for us that is the question?

I would like to introduce Madam Curie which many of you know her by on her replies at Mormon Matters she also has her own blog Third Wave Mormon . She has shared with us what I think is a very interesting and thought provoking article.

Is a “believing heart” really a positive attribute?

“Blessed are those that have not seen, and yet have believed.” – John 20:29

“Faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” – Hebrews 11:1

Having a “faithful” or “believing” heart is greatly prized among the religious. Those who uncover less savory aspects of LDS history are frequently told to “Just have faith,” even in the face of opposing evidence. As I have pondered the question of faith, I have begun to question whether a “believing heart” is really a positive attribute, or where and when it should be applied.

From a scientist’s perspective, faith is about the worst thing you can have; the scientific method entirely depends on an ability to be objective, and to rationally and logically question what you see. This seems absolutely antithetical to the idea that we should have a “believing heart”. From the perspective of a smart shopper, you should never take a product’s claims on their word only. And in terms of internet safety, there is an army of Nigerian princes waiting for you to have “faith” in them.

Is there a requirement that the thing we have faith in be a “true” principle? For example, I can have faith that my son will one day win the Nobel Prize in Medicine, but that doesn’t not make it so. In fact, that faith may lead me to make potentially detrimental decisions in my son’s upbringing: for example, stressing science over any other talent he may have, and giving him unrealistic and unattainable goals. Goal setting is incredibly stressed in the LDS church. In the Single’s ward we were told that all we had to do was set a date for when we wanted to be married; if we had enough faith, God would provide the man.

Even if we constrain the practice of faith to the spiritual realm, it is still not entirely clear what religious teachings we should have faith in. I have heard strong, compelling testimonies of faith from Jews, Muslims, polygamous FLDS, Mormons, Catholics, and born-again Christians. Each of them had a “believing heart”. Furthermore, am I required to have faith in the doctrine alone, or must I also have faith in the leaders of these individual religions? What if I am asked to do something that is illegal, or morally wrong? (An immediate example is Joseph Smith’s commandment to enter into polygamous marriages, something that was both illegal and was considered a moral aberration). Are faith and obedience to be prized above courage and conscience?

What about when your faith in something is at the expense of another? For example, Pres. Monson told the CA Saints to give their time and money to pass Prop. 8, which overturned the ability of homosexual Californians to marry. For many of those individuals, they had faith that Pres. Monson was speaking directly for God on the matter. If they had not, they may have acted differently.

If you apply the criterion that the thing you have faith in must “enlarge your heart,” well, even that is unclear. I have found equally strong spiritual emotions in the practice of Paganism and Buddhism as I have had as a Mormon, and I find great joy in attending Catholic Mass. Does that make all of these faith traditions “true”? Yet, they contradict one another in doctrinal teachings, so how is that possible? And several of them contend to be the “only true church”.

Where is the value in faith for faith’s sake?

In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.

Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

That being said, we do know that there is a divider between the glories and the non-glories. We have that ominous concept: Outer Darkness. But what does it mean? Who is it for?

Just as I’ve always taken Mormonism’s after life to be so much more universal than other afterlife formulations, I’ve naturally wanted to stretch out this universalism. So, my understanding has always been that the three glories of heaven will be quite generously populated and that outer darkness will be sparse and lonely indeed.

Let's hope life isn't like a Sierra game

I took for granted that to qualify for this terrible anti-prize of complete separation, a person would have to try pretty hard. I didn’t think it was like a Sierra game, where you can accidentally and irreversibly render the entire game unwinnable within the first five minutes of turning on the game. Instead, you had to do specific (and unlikely) things. Like, say, come to a fulness of the gospel, have an amazing experience as consequence of your full understanding (like, I dunno, see God), and then walk away from in all with rejection. And then, only after all of this, could you win your new prize of total estrangement from their Heavenly Father.

Even then…this consequence wouldn’t be something that God sentenced someone to. Rather, it would be an individual’s choice to walk away from it all after having seen so much.

That was how I understood it. So, when I realized that I — gasp — didn’t believe in the church’s teachings, the “what if” scenario for if the church ended up being correct anyway didn’t bother me. I would accept whatever I got, but my understanding was that I wouldn’t quite qualify for outer darkness.

…But it all hinges on what it means to have the fulness of the Gospel. After all, it might not mean the amazingness of seeing God face-to-face. We often say that we have the fulness of the Gospel. In this case, would this mean that all ex-Mormons are hosed?

Let’s look at some scriptures.

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

Better off if we had never been born..?

The criteria here for receiving these scathing descriptors doesn’t seem too difficult to reach: just deny the Holy Ghost after having received it.

In the church, every member who is baptized has the laying on of hands to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. If we use that as the yardstick, then wouldn’t any apostate become one for who “it had been better for them never to have been born”?

Is this scripture one of the straightforward ones…or is it one that needs to be looked at more carefully? What do you say?

As I read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, and other materials about the Church, I get the feeling sometimes that things can be a little vague.  Human nature seems to dictate that an absolute answer is always preferred over ambiguity and vagueness.

But in the religious realm, it is not to be.  Vagueness is defined as not clear in meaning or application or, indistinctly felt, perceived, understood, or recalled; hazy.

The fact that there are so many religions and religious denominations seems to confirm this idea. For instance, if there is one God, our Heavenly Father, why does He seem to manifest Himself so differently to different people, to different cultures, and at different times?

For example, In the LDS Church, we believe that Baptism is an essential ordnance to enter the kingdom of God and to progress toward eternal life and salvation.  And there are Christian denominations that echo that same idea.  However, there are just as many, maybe more, who, reading the same scriptures, deny the necessity of Baptism for salvation.  Vagueness occurs because the scriptures are not 100% clear on that point.  Within the LDS Church, the Prophet Joseph Smith did make it clear, in the Fourth Article of Faith, that Baptism is essential.

In another, more contemporary example, many conservative Christians and Jews, for that matter, look at scriptures in Leviticus to proclaim that Homosexual activity is wrong. (Leviticus 18:22, see also Romans 1:27, 29-31, 32) However, religious organizations and individuals more sympathetic toward the Gay Movement have interpreted those scriptures very differently and say that they do not even address the issue of homosexuality.  (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh5.htm) The scriptures do not come right out and address the issue so clearly it cannot be open to interpretation. Vagueness.

In Doctrine and Covenants Section 89, the Word of Wisdom verse 9, “hot drinks are not for the body or belly.” But what is a hot drink?  Anyone’s first read of that verse would lead them to conclude it was ANY drink that was HOT  That does not seem terribly vague.

But wait, there’s more!

In 1842 Hyrum Smith, Assistant President of the Church and also the Presiding Patriarch, provided an interpretation of the Word of Wisdom’s proscription of “hot drinks”:

“And again “hot drinks are not for the body, or belly;” there are many who wonder what this can mean; whether it refers to tea, or coffee, or not. I say it does refer to tea, and coffee.  (Times and Seasons, 1842-06-01, vol. 3, p. 800.

But it does not refer to hot chocolate, hot herbal tea, hot barley drinks, etc. But, many have also speculated as to why coffee and tea?  Could it be the caffeine? If so, that means cola drinks, or anything else that might have caffeine in it.  You mean like chocolate? Wait a minute! I thought hot chocolate was ok? What about Mountain Dew, its not a cola drink?  Here is a case where something seems pretty straightforward but has been made somewhat vague.

Here are a few other topics that have been vague at one time or another:

• Tithing: Net or Gross?
• New and Everlasting  Covenant of Marriage: Plurality of Wives or just Eternal marriage ( Sealing)
• Missouri Extermination Order: Kill them or just run them out of town?
• United Order: Voluntary or the Law of Consecration?
• Blacks and the Priesthood:  Doctrine, policy or  just plain prejudice?
• Many, many more

So why would Gospel Principles be Vague?

First, maybe they are not all that vague.  Maybe, you need to find the right source of information. If the scriptures seem vague, what have the Living Prophets said?  If that is vague, what does the Lord tell you when you pray about it or what does the Spirit testify to you about it?  Still nothing?  What are you willing t o take on faith alone?

Second, We do need to develop faith. “NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”  (Hebrews 11:1). Some things have no immediate answer and must be taken on faith alone until a later time.

Thirdly, we are here on earth as a test.  Ultimately, we decide for ourselves the path we walk. Like the verse at the beginning of this post, if we did not have our agency to decide for ourselves and had to be told each and every little detail, we would not progress to reach the goal of living with Our Father in Heaven and His Son throughout eternity.

Sure, things can be a bit vague and uncertain at times.  But it is part of the great Plan of happiness for us to endure to the end.

So, the question at hand is how do you deal with the vagueness and ambiguity? Perhaps you think there is none. Feel free to list your vague Gospel Principles.

Please explain your answer.

The story of Adam and Eve is the primary narrative when discussions of agency and accountability arise.  How we interpret the events of the Garden has a big impact on the way we frame this debate.  A standard statement is the second Article of Faith: ‘We believe that [individuals] will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’.  Notions of Individual accountability are often rooted in this declaration because it apparently denounces ‘Original Sin’.

However I feel that this is actually contrary to what is being stated.  What the second Article of Faith acknowledges is that Adam and Eve’s action in the Garden has influenced the choices that are currently available to us now.  We are taught that people are conceived in sin and that we begin to desire sin in our earliest years, even before we are aware of it (see Mos 6:55).  We are born into a world where sin pre-dominates and this will inevitably impact the choices that we will make [1].  Therefore my capacity to choose is influenced by the choice of another.  This article of faith teaches that I will not be punished for Adam and Eve’s transgression, but my sins are a direct consequence of the world they created.  So is this really saying to us that there is a reduced accountability for what we do wrong in this life.  Certainly, at the very least, the choices I make now are impacted by what Adam and Eve did.

To put it another way, Lehi, when speaking to the Children of Laman and Lemuel, promsies them that they will not be held accountable for not believing and following the gospel if their parents continue to rebel.  In other words, Lehi suggests that the patterns of belief and action are set early in life and may be difficult to change, but these children will have a ‘reduced’ accountability because of the reduced likelihood that they will accept the gospel because of the actions of their parents.  From a different perspective, Boyd K. Packer has said that children are influenced by their environment and that the degree to which the society accepts a set of morals which are mis-directed is an important factor on the values we have.  Elder Packer therefore believes that the extent of such cultural ‘wickedness’ will be factored into our Final Judgment[2].

All this suggests that accountability and agency are actually a matter of being inter-dependent.  Our actions are invariably linked to a multitude of other people.  We are tied to this multitude, by the ripples of influence that reverberate out from every action.  If we fall, others will fall with us; but if we are lifted up to God, others will come with us as well.

Thinking this way helps me understanding a little the more the statement that ‘we without them cannot be made perfect; neither can they without us be made perfect’ (D&C 128:18).  I see this as not only applying to the salvation of the dead but also to each of those people who are around us; those who are tied to us by love or even by association.

I am not suggesting that we are merely puppets who are controlled by those around us.  We can choose to return evil for good, or good for evil.  However, we cannot make these choices, develop our values or live our lives separate from others.  It seems to me that our very nature indicates that we are social beings, that we are not alone in making choices and are therefore not wholly alone when speaking of our accountability.  Our choices and our accountability are reciprocal.

Notes:

1. Robert L. Millet, The Regeneration of Fallen Man in Selected Writings of Robert L. Millet: Gospel Scholars Series [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 2000], 172.

2. Boyd K. Packer, Our Moral Environment in Ensign, May 1992.

At the time, I was reading Muhammad Yunus’ book, Banker to the Poor, in which he relates how he, as an Economics professor in Bangladesh, helped create a micro-lending bank that makes small loans to the poor so they can quit their exploitative jobs, start their own businesses, and climb out of poverty. Yunus explains how traditional aid programs, which typically rely on the UN and government agencies as “middle men” to administer aid, have a proven track record of gross inefficiency and failure spanning several decades. His micro-lending operation, and many others like it, cut out the bureaucratic middle-men so that the money intended for the poor actually makes it to the poor. By working with impoverished communities around the world, Yunus learned first-hand that the poor are willing and able to work, but simply lack the capital needed to start their own businesses. By providing loans that must be repaid, rather than giving away handouts, Yunus and micro-lenders like him “teach a man to fish” by enabling the poor to break out of the poverty cycle and support themselves.

When I discussed all this with a friend, Stephen Wellington, he told me Kiva.org was exactly what I was looking for. And he was right. Kiva builds on the work of Yunus and others by taking their micro-lending model to the next level. Using the Internet, Kiva enables regular people like you and me to make micro-loans as small as $25 to people all over the world who want to lift their families out of poverty by starting their own businesses.

Here’s a typical example of how Kiva works: a family in Cambodia grows rice, but is barely subsisting. They could greatly increase their rice production if they had a new plow and some fertilizer, but they don’t have the money for it. So they submit a loan application for $600 to a local mico-lending agency in Cambodia that partners with Kiva. The family’s loan request is then posted on Kiva, and that’s when the loan fund-raising begins. With just a few mouse clicks, regular folks like you and me all over the world can pool our contributions of as little as $25 each to reach the $600 total that the family needs. Once the loan money has been raised, Kiva sends it to the local micro-lending agency, which disburses the loan funds to the family in need. Every month, the family makes small re-payments to the local micro-lending agency in Cambodia, which are sent back to Kiva and put in your Kiva account. When you receive a monthly repayment, you can either cash out and get your money back, or re-loan the money to another family in need.

This month is our family’s one-year anniversary with Kiva. A year ago we spent a Family Home Evening with our children reviewing loan requests on the Kiva website. Because we were new to Kiva and therefore a little uncertain about its reliability, we decided to loan an amount of money that we thought could make a difference in a few families’ lives, but that was small enough that we could accept losing completely if it all turned out to be a scam. So we took $500 and divided it amongst a few families from a few different countries: the Cambodian family already mentioned; a mother in Peru needing funds to expand her door-to-door grocery business; a father in Mongolia needing funds to repair his mini-bus for his transportation business; a father in the Philippines needing funds to expand his small hog farm; a mother in Senegal needing funds to buy ice-cream making equipment, etc.

As we received the monthly re-payments, we immediately re-loaned the money in $25 increments to other families. We also received Kiva video updates from the field about the families we were assisting. (See an example here.) These video updates provided our children with a window to the world, showing them how families around the world struggle to support themselves, and helping our children develop a greater awareness of, and desire to help, those in need.

So what were the results of our family’s first year experimenting with Kiva? With just our $500 initial contribution of loan funds, which we re-loaned to other families in $25 increments as loans were repaid, we were able to:

• Make a total of 40 loans . . .
• in a total amount of $1,275 . . .
• to families in 21 different countries (Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Cambodia, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Dominican Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Rwanda, Senegal, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Ukraine) . . .
• $783 of which has already been repaid . . .
• with a delinquency rate (late payments) of 7.38% . . .
• and a default rate of 6.25 % (higher than the Kiva average of 1.65%) . . .
• meaning our total loss after one year has been only $25 (one loan in the Dominican Republic).

Our family’s contribution has been just one tiny drop in the ocean of Kiva lending. Just last week on Kiva: 3,629 new lenders joined; 11,207 lenders made a loan; 2,344 entrepreneurs were funded; and $752,850 was lent, at a rate of one loan every 23 seconds.

Overall, our family has fallen in love with the concept of micro-lending, because we’ve discovered that by re-lending funds as they are repaid, we were able to do $1,275 worth of good with our $500 initial contribution of loan funds. Over the coming years, the amount of good that $500 initial contribution does will only multiply. And with a loss of only one $25 loan that defaulted, we’ve learned that Kiva, its field partners, and its borrowers are trustworthy enough to continue lending to them for years to come.

However, we might estimate an answer by examining court opinions arising from criminal prosecutions. This method is admittedly a soft proxy. Criminal opinions reflect only a small portion of all criminal prosecutions, and they refer to a defendant’s religion only when it is somehow injected into the proceedings. Still, what these opinions say about the relative criminality of certain religions is interesting, as is the examination of how these cases vary over time. By looking at the number of “Mormon defendant” criminal cases, we might see whether there is an uptick in Mormon-committed crimes or different ways in how Mormons, compared with members of other faiths, choose to defend themselves when charged with crimes.

As part of my continuing examination into how Mormons are treated in American law, I pulled all of the cases, from any American court (federal or state) that mentions Mormonism. I did the same for three religions with whom the LDS Church is sometimes confused – the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Christian Scientists. This article deals with those cases where individual members were named as criminal defendants [1]. I focused on the years after 1960, which is to say the last 50 years [2]. The following chart reflects the number of criminal prosecutions from any American federal or state that were the subject of written opinions since 1960, where the defendant was identified in the court opinion as a member of these four religions.

It appears that this frequency is on the upswing. Over the last decade, there have been twice as many Mormon/Adventist/Scientist/Witness “criminal defendant” opinions (89) than in the 1990s (41). In fact, there were more of these cases in the last ten years than from the entire 40-year span between 1960 and 1999. This is a remarkable trajectory.

Now, let’s take a look at these numbers, broken down by religion.

In total, over the past 50 years, Mormons led the pack, with 81 opinions [3]. This is followed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, with 64 cases,[4] though there were more of these opinions in the last decade than those involving LDS defendants. The Scientists (11 cases)[5] and the Seventh-Day Adventists (9 cases)[6] were about the same over this 50-year period; to the extent they commit crimes, their religions are rarely mentioned in court opinions. The same cannot be said, however, of the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which present the most interesting choice for comparison.

Of course, the charts above do no discriminate between serious and non-serious crimes. To accomplish that, I divided the crimes into five categories: (1) murder, (2) sex crimes (rape and child molestation), (3) other violent crimes, (4) money crimes (including drug offenses) and (5) petty offenses. I than ran comparisons between the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Taking the Mormons first, this is what the type-of-crime distribution looks like:

The rise in “Mormon defendant” criminal cases over the last decade comes from murder [7] and sex [8] crimes. Violent, [9] money [10] and petty [11] crimes remains fairly constant between the 1990s and 2000s (a combined total of about 11 or 12 a year). The petty crime cases were de minimis.

Here is the chart for the Jehovah’s Witnesses:

Just like members of the LDS Church who find themselves charged with crimes, Jehovah’s Witnesses saw a large increase in the most serious crimes – murder [12] and sex [13] – during the last decade. Meanwhile, compared with their Mormon counterparts, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ crimes are not as evenly-distributed across the various types of crimes (fewer violent crime [14] and money [15] cases, though more petty [16] crime cases). The larger number of total Mormon cases over the last 50 years can be attributed to the money crimes prosecutions, in which the Jehovah’s Witnesses were not as much named during the 1990s and 2000s.

Remember my earlier statement about the number of opinions being a soft proxy for actual criminality?  One explanation for the growth in murder and sex cases involving Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses does not depend on the theory that their actual criminality is increasing. According to this theory, the increase in these cases is due to evolving legal strategy where religious facts or attributes are increasingly being injected into criminal proceedings by lawyers. This theory would be particularly attractive to church leaders responsible for maintaining the integrity or image of their institutions. If the increased references to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses in murder and sex cases is due to legal maneuvering by the defendants themselves rather than an increase in real criminality, the religions themselves would be blameless. Determining whether there is anything to this theory requires a further parsing of the cases.

How and why were the LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses churches referenced in these cases? Those who are the purest believers in the separation between church and state would argue that religion has no place in secular courts. To them, the ideal would be criminal court opinions which nowhere refer to any religion. Of course, that is not realistic, since sometimes the religion is relevant to the particular facts. Are these references a natural outgrowth of facts relevant to the proceeding? If not, who is injecting them more, the prosecution or the defense?

My examination turned up some interesting trends, and five general categories of cases. First, there were cases in which the particular church was inextricably tied to the motive for the crimes. In these cases, individuals violently acted out in a way they claimed was mandated by their version of, say, Mormonism, and this motive was proved in court. I refer to these as “Religious Motive” [17] cases. A second category were cases in which the church happened to put the defendant and the victim together, and was a vehicle for their acquaintance. I refer to these as “Church Vehicle” cases [18]. Third, there were cases where the defendant’s religion came up merely in passing but was not otherwise relevant to the decisions (“Dicta Cases”)[19]. In the fourth category, a defendant fights to keep evidence involving his/her religion – which is being offered by the prosecution – out of the proceedings (“Objection Cases”)[20]. In the fifth category, the defendant affirmatively seeks to take advantage of his/her religion for exoneration or mitigation, as if a statement like “I am a Mormon” was legally cognizable for some beneficial legal purpose. I refer to these cases as “Affirmative Use Cases” [21]. The categories that do not depend on some conscious decision to inject religion into the criminal prosecutions are Motive, Vehicle and Dicta. Objection and Affirmative Use cases, on the other hand, reflect legal strategy.

Here is a chart showing the numerical breakdown of the Mormon and the Jehovah’s Witnesses cases for these five categories of cases.

The ten Mormon Motive cases would be familiar to anyone who follows Mormonism: the various cases that arose out of the prosecutions of the Lafferty brothers and the Singer/Swapp and the Rulon Allred clans [22]. There was only one Jehovah’s Witness Motive case, involving woman who killed because she was disconsolate for having been excommunicated [23].

The Vehicle cases arose in cases where members victimized other members, mainly sex abuse and fraud cases. The Dicta cases contained merely extraneous references to the defendant’s religion, seemingly without any conscious decision to argue it was significant.

The Objection and Affirmative Use cases are the most interesting to the theory that religion is being mostly injected for strategic reasons.  The Mormon “affirmative use” cases vary, from a woman pulled to for DUI who told the cop she could not be guilty because she was a Mormon and did not drink, to a man who said he could not be guilty of sexually abusing children because he was a Mormon who viewed child molestation on par with murder, to those Mormon defendants who called church leaders and acquaintances to testify to their good character.  The Mormon “object” cases typically argued that their confession to church leaders should not be admitted into evidence because it was coercive and prejudicial.

The only real disparity between Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is in the Objection category, with Mormons being higher; it appears that there were more cases in which Mormons defendants objected to religious evidence coming in when proffered by the prosecution.

Let’s take a look at these categories for Mormons, over time:

Here is the same chart for the Jehovah’s Witnesses:

For Mormon criminal defendants, the reference to their religion offered by the prosecution (the Objection cases) is actually going down over time, while the affirmative use of Mormonism by defendants in their criminal trials is going up, as it is with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both are seeing a slight increase in cases where the reference was due to the church being a vehicle to put the defendant and his/her victim in contact. This is undoutedly due to the rise of sex abuse cases for both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, where the victims are kids the defendant meets through church.

Finally, is there a difference between how Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses defendants invoke their religion into their criminal trials? Indeed there is. When Mormons do it, it tends to be as favorable character evidence, though there were a few Mormon cases where the defendant pointed to an overly strict upbringing to explain why they engaged in bad behavior [24]. Meanwhile, there were far more Jehovah’s Witnesses trying this latter tact – eight cases [25]. In one remarkable case, the defense actually offered social scientific evidence, in an effort to mitigate the defendant’s liability, that Jehovah’s Witnneses tend to commit more crime that others [26]. Talk about bad image!

The upshot? Any religion should be concerned when more of its members are named as criminal defendants in court opinions. It inevitably presents a public relations problem, no matter the explanation. The growth in sex abuse prosecutions is just such a problem for Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, it appears that the increase in references to these religions in criminal opinions over the last decade might reflect some conscious strategic decisions by defendants and their lawyers, rather than a scourge of crime committed recently by members of these faiths. Is there a remedy? Not likely. I, for one, would not want to be the church leader to tell a criminal defendant to keep quiet about his good religious works, for fear of giving the church a bad name.
____________

[1] I recognize that this task gets tricky when the defendant has been excommunicated or was thinking about joining the particular faith when the prosecution occurs but had not gotten around to it. To resolve this issue, I treated baptism as membership. Thus, I included in my computations those cases involving excommunicated members but not inquiring individuals.

[2] In addition to my chosen focus on modern times, this limit is necessary to guard against the inclusion of uniquely religious prosecutions, which proliferated in the 1940s involving Mormons (for polygamy) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (for aggressive proselytizing). Including these “religious prosecutions” would skew the comparison. For the earlier Mormon criminal cases, see U.S. v. Barlow, 56 F.Supp. 795 (D. Utah 1944); U.S. v. Cleveland, 56 F.Supp. 890 (D. Utah 1944); State v. Barlow, 107 Utah 292, 153 P.2d 647 (Utah 1944); Cleveland v. U.S., 146 F.2d 730 (10th Cir. 1945); Chatwin v. U.S., 326 U.S. 455, 66 S.Ct. 233 (1946); Cleveland v. U.S., 329 U.S. 14, 67 S.Ct. 13, (1946): State v. Musser, 110 Utah 534, 175 P.2d 724 (Utah 1946); Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95, 68 S.Ct. 397 (1948). Some example Jehovah’s Witness cases from this earlier era are Slaughter v. State, 64 Ga.App. 423, 13 S.E.2d 391 (Ga.App. 1941); Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766 (1942). I also did not include cases during the 1960s and 1970s where Jehovah’s Witnesses were charged with failure to accept induction into the U.S. military, since these were conscience cases.

[3] The 81 Mormon criminal defendant cases since 1960, in chronological order, are People v. Marsh 22 Cal.Rptr. 117 (Cal.App. 1962); People v. Marsh, 58 Cal.2d 732, 376 P.2d 300 (Cal. 1962); State v. Swenson, 62 Wash.2d 259, 382 P.2d 614 (WASH. 1963); State v. Moeller, 50 Haw. 110, 433 P.2d 136 (Hawaii 1967); Ferrin v. People, 164 Colo. 130, 433 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1967); People v. Bassett, 69 Cal.2d 122, 443 P.2d 777 (Cal. 1968); Castleberry v. State, 522 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr. 1974); Groebner v. State, 342 So.2d 94 (Fla.App. 1977); U.S. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1979); State v. Marvin, 124 Ariz. 555, 606 P.2d 406 (Ariz. 1980); People v. Willoughby, 164 Cal.App.3d 1054, 210 Cal.Rptr. 880 (Cal.App.5.Dist.); State v. Foster, 467 So.2d 1254 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Goodwin, 770 F.2d 631 (7th Cir. 1985); State v. Stone, 151 Ariz. 455, 728 P.2d 674 (Ariz.App. 1986); Sanders v. State, 1986 WL 1161159 (Alaska App. 1986); State v. Cox, 87 Or.App. 443, 742 P.2d 694 (Or.App.,1986); State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239, (Utah 1988); Com. v. Montanino, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 130, 535 N.E.2d 617 (Mass.App.Ct. 1989); Wilson v. State, 105 Nev. 110, 771 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1989); U.S. v. Swapp, 719 F.Supp. 1015 (D.Utah 1989); Gillespie v. State, 549 So.2d 640 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); U.S. v. Swapp, 934 F.2d 326 (10th Cir. 1990); State v. Swapp, 808 P.2d 115 (Utah App. 1991); State v. Romero, 120 Idaho 255, 815 P.2d 453 (Idaho 1991); Lafferty v. Cook, 949 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Tilton, 34 M.J. 1104 (ACMR 1992); U.S. v. Miller, 984 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1993); Matter of Lybbert, 1993 WL 52802 (Cal.Bar Ct. 1993) ; U.S. v. Starnes, 14 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1994); State v. Otte, 1994 WL 590556 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1994); State v. Hildreth, 267 Mont. 423, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1994); U.S. v. Barlow, 41 F.3d 935 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Adamson, 59 F.3d 176 (9th Cir. 1995); State v. Davis, 670 A.2d 786 (R.I. 1996); Clark v. State, 728 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); State v. Burrell, 1997 WL 53455 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1997); Rodriguez v. State, 1997 WL 527843 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997); Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1998); U.S. v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 1998); Brown v. Anderson, 164 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Giles, 966 P.2d 872 (Utah App. 1998); Snider v. State, 238 Ga.App. 55, 516 S.E.2d 569 (Ga.App. 1999); U.S. v. Swapp, 198 F.3d 260 (10th Cir. 1999); State v. El-Tabech, 259 Neb. 509, 610 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 2000); State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 734 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio 2000); State v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342(Utah 2001); State v. Hopkins, 62 Conn.App. 665, 772 A.2d 657 (Conn.App. 2001); Robles v. Senkowski, 2002 WL 441153 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); State v. Hessler, 2002 WL 1379249 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 2002); People v. Hansen, 2003 WL 22455820 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2003); People v. Adams, 2004 WL 194385 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004); U.S. v. Anderson, 94 Fed.Appx. 487 (9th Cir. 2004); State v. Genter, 872 So.2d 552 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004); State v. Teters, 321 Mont. 379, 91 P.3d 559 (Mont. 2004); People v. Harward, 2004 WL 1282850 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2004); People v. Lind, 2004 WL 1427134 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); State v. Parks, 2004 WL 1936404 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2004); In re Grant O., 2004 WL 2251747 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); Phillips v. Travis, 6 Misc.3d 1041(A), 800 N.Y.S.2d 354 (N.Y.Sup. 2005); Pulido v. Lamarque, 2005 WL 6142229 (N.D.Cal. 2005); State v. Clifford, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2005); People v. Hettiger, 2005 WL 2143640 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2005); Nash v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1889589 (D.Ariz. 2006); U.S. v. Thurston, 456 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2006); People v. Serrano, 2006 WL 2498118 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2006); U.S. v. Gentry, 455 F.Supp.2d 1018 (D.Ariz. 2006); U.S. v. Cook, 2007 WL 130326 (W.D.Wash. 2007); U.S. v. Sutton,2007 WL 1341400 (D.Ariz. 2007); People v. Sayres, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); People v. Blanchard, , 2007 WL 1653098 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2007); People v. Perez, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL 1776210 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379, 165 P.3d 512 (Cal. 2007); Tevaga v. McGrath, 2007 WL 2572245 (N.D.Cal. 2007); Lafferty v. State, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007); People v. Sayres, 2007 WL 3087944 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); Otte v. Houk, 2008 WL 408525 (N.D.Ohio 2008); Green v. State, 2008 WL 787282 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008); U.S. v. Johnson, 553 F.Supp.2d 582 (E.D.Va. 2008); Hill v. State, 377 S.C. 462, 661 S.E.2d 92 (S.C. 2008); People v. Carpenter, 2009 WL 776113 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009); Forrest v. State, — S.W.3d —-, 2009 WL 1674922 (Mo. 2009).

[4] The 64 Jehovah’s Witnesses criminal defendant cases over the last 50 years (excluding the draft evasion cases) are U.S. v. Hoker, 483 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1973); Herbert v. State, 357 So.2d 683 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); Com. v. Doe, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 297, 393 N.E.2d 426 (Mass.App., 1979); People v. Levan, 99 Ill.App.3d 310, 425 N.E.2d 1010 (Ill.App. 1981); State v. Roussel, 424 So.2d 226 (La. 1982); People v. Hall, 114 Ill.2d 376, 499 N.E.2d 1335 (Ill. 1986); Townes v. Com., 234 Va. 307, 362 S.E.2d 650 (Va. 1987); People v. Macioce, 197 Cal.App.3d 262, 242 Cal.Rptr. 771 (Cal.App.6.Dist. 1987); Spivey v. State, 193 Ga.App. 127, 386 S.E.2d 868 (Ga.App. 1989); State v. Halcomb, 1 Neb.App. 681, 510 N.W.2d 344 (Neb.App. 1993); State v. Koelling, 1993 WL 150497 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1993); Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Crim.App.,1994); Lowe v. State, 650 So.2d 969 (Fla.,1994); State v. Koelling,1995 WL 125933 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1995); State v. Brett, 126 Wash.2d 136, 892 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995); Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Thompson, 106 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 1997); Pascoe v. State, 1997 WL 61484 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997); Guzman v. Lacy, 1998 WL 512954 (S.D.N.Y.,1998); Akridge v. State, 13 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000); People v. Young, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2000 WL 33521874 (Mich.App. 2000); Soria v. Johnson, 207 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2000); People v. Thompkins, 191 Ill.2d 438, 732 N.E.2d 553 (Ill. 2000); State v. Cheney-Shaw, 2000 WL 1231552 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2000); People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 743 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. 2000); Bradley v. State, 787 So.2d 732 (Fla.,2001); State v. Eisenhouer, 40 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. 2001); U.S. v. Nedd, 262 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2001); Evans v. State, 800 So.2d 182 (Fla. 2001); Smith v. State, 2001 WL 1608142 (Minn.App. 2001); State v. Blackstock, 147 N.H. 791, 802 A.2d 1169 (N.H. 2002); People v. Halverson, 2002 WL 1733247 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2002); People v. Nelson, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2003 WL 1958803 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2003); U.S. v. Brown, 330 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2003); Allridge v. Cockrell, 92 Fed.Appx. 60 (5th Cir. 2003); People v. Wolfenbarge, 2003 WL 22391135 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2003); State v. Davis, 318 Mont. 459, 81 P.3d 484 (Mont. 2003); State v. Scott, 101 Ohio St.3d 31, 800 N.E.2d 1133 (Ohio 2004); State v. Huffman120 Wash.App. 1038 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2004); People v. Johnson, 2004 WL 909242 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); People v. Scott, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2351590 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2004); People v. Portillo, 2004 WL 2361583 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004); People v. Jordan, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 15432 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2005); People v. Atencio, 2005 WL 2461918 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2005); State v. Lopez, 122 P.3d 838 (Kan.App. 2005); U.S. v. Santos, 406 F.Supp.2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); State v. Patterson, 2005 WL 3475740 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2005); Ploeger v. State, 189 S.W.3d 799 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2006); People v. Scharf, 2006 WL 1064479 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2006); Correll v. Ryan, 465 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182, 158 P.3d 763 (Cal. 2007); State v. Bagley, 101 Conn.App. 653, 922 A.2d 1128 (Conn.App. 2007); Matthews v. Sirmons, 2007 WL 2286239 (W.D.Okla. 2007); Davis v. Macdonald, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2701580 (D.Mont. 2007); Evans v. State, 975 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 2007); State v. Bazarte, 2007 WL 4105010 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2007); Correll v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008); Ben-Sholom v. Ayers, 566 F.Supp.2d 1053, (E.D.Cal. 2008); People v. Apodaca, 2008 WL 643084 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2008); State v. Smith, 2008 WL 2829275 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2008); People v. Simental, 2009 WL 2426334 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009); People v. Bennett, 45 Cal.4th 577, 199 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2009); People v. Hyung Joon Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078, 202 P.3d 436 (Cal. 2009); and Matthews v. Workman, — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2488142 (10th Cir. 2009).

[5] The 11 Christian Scientists criminal defendant cases are State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469 (Minn. 1979); Walker v. Superior Court (People), 222 Cal.Rptr. 87 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1986); Walker v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.3d 112, 253 Cal.Rptr. 1 (Cal. 1988); Hermanson v. State, 570 So.2d 322 (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 1990); State v. McKown, 461 N.W.2d 720 (Minn.App. 1990); People v. Rippberger, 231 Cal.App.3d 1667, 283 Cal.Rptr. 111 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1991); State v. McKown, 475 N.W.2d 63 (Minn. 1991); Hermanson v. State, 604 So.2d 775 (Fla. 1992); Com. v. Twitchell, 416 Mass. 114, 617 N.E.2d 609 (Mass.,1993); People v. Marshall, 13 Cal.4th 799, 919 P.2d 1280 (Cal. 1996); and In re Williams,  2007 WL 3122254 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007).

[6] The nine Adventist criminal defendant cases, in chronological order, are U.S. v. Wright, 627 F.2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Graham v. State, 480 N.E.2d 981 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1985); U.S. v. Harvey, 897 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1990); U.S. v. Miller, 46 M.J. 248 (U.S. Armed Forces 1997); Roybal v. State, 2003 WL 22241629 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2003); State v. Caulley, 2007 WL 136471 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. 2007); State v. Rideout, 968 So.2d 1210 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2007); State v. McKnight, 2008 WL 2124076 (Ohio App. 4 Dist.,2008); and People v. Davenport, 280 Mich.App. 464, 760 N.W.2d 743 (Mich.App. 2008).

[7] The Mormon murder cases are State v. Swenson, 62 Wash.2d 259, 382 P.2d 614 (WASH. 1963); State v. Moeller, 50 Haw. 110, 433 P.2d 136 (Hawaii 1967); Ferrin v. People, 164 Colo. 130, 433 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1967); People v. Bassett, 69 Cal.2d 122, 443 P.2d 777 (Cal. 1968); Castleberry v. State, 522 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr. 1974); State v. Marvin, 124 Ariz. 555, 606 P.2d 406 (Ariz. 1980); State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1988); Wilson v. State, 105 Nev. 110, 771 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1989); State v. Swapp, 808 P.2d 115 (Utah App. 1991); State v. Romero, 120 Idaho 255, 815 P.2d 453 (Idaho 1991); Lafferty v. Cook, 949 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir. 1991); State v. Otte, 1994 WL 590556 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1994); Clark v. State, 728 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1998); State v. El-Tabech, 259 Neb. 509, 610 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 2000); State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 734 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio 2000); State v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342 (Utah 2001); Robles v. Senkowski, 2002 WL 441153 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); State v. Hessler, 2002 WL 1379249 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 2002); People v. Hansen, 2003 WL 22455820 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2003); State v. Genter, 872 So.2d 552 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004); Phillips v. Travis, 6 Misc.3d 1041(A), 800 N.Y.S.2d 354 (N.Y.Sup. 2005); Pulido v. Lamarque, 2005 WL 6142229 (N.D.Cal. 2005); People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379, 165 P.3d 512 (Cal. 2007); Tevaga v. McGrath, 2007 WL 2572245 (N.D.Cal. 2007); Lafferty v. State, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007); Otte v. Houk, 2008 WL 408525 (N.D.Ohio 2008); Hill v. State, 377 S.C. 462, 661 S.E.2d 92 (S.C. 2008); People v. Carpenter, 2009 WL 776113 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009); and Forrest v. State, — S.W.3d —-, 2009 WL 1674922 (Mo. 2009).

[8] The Mormon sex crime cases are People v. Willoughby,164 Cal.App.3d 1054, 210 Cal.Rptr. 880 (Cal.App.5.Dist.); State v. Foster, 467 So.2d 1254 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985); State v. Stone, 151 Ariz. 455, 728 P.2d 674 (Ariz.App. 1986); State v. Cox, 87 Or.App. 443, 742 P.2d 694 (Or.App.,1986); Com. v. Montanino, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 130, 535 N.E.2d 617 (Mass.App.Ct. 1989); Gillespie v. State, 549 So.2d 640 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); State v. Hildreth, 267 Mont. 423, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1994); State v. Davis, 670 A.2d 786 (R.I. 1996); State v. Burrell, 1997 WL 53455 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1997); Rodriguez v. State, 1997 WL 527843 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997); Snider v. State, 238 Ga.App. 55, 516 S.E.2d 569 (Ga.App. 1999); State v. Teters, 321 Mont. 379, 91 P.3d 559 (Mont. 2004); People v. Harward, 2004 WL 1282850 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2004); People v. Lind, 2004 WL 1427134 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); State v. Parks, 2004 WL 1936404 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2004); In re Grant O., 2004 WL 2251747 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); People v. Hettiger, 2005 WL 2143640 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2005); People v. Serrano, 2006 WL 2498118 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2006); People v. Sayres, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); People v. Blanchard, , 2007 WL 1653098 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2007);People v. Perez, 2007 WL 1776210 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); People v. Sayres, 2007 WL 3087944 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); and Green v. State, 2008 WL 787282 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008).

[9] The Mormon violent crime cases are U.S. v. Swapp,719 F.Supp. 1015 (D.Utah 1989); U.S. v. Swapp, 934 F.2d 326 (10th Cir. 1990); U.S. v. Tilton, 34 M.J. 1104 (ACMR 1992); U.S. v. Barlow, 41 F.3d 935 (5th Cir. 1994); Brown v. Anderson, 164 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Swapp, 198 F.3d 260 (10th Cir. 1999); State v. Hopkins, 62 Conn.App. 665, 772 A.2d 657 (Conn.App. 2001); People v. Adams, 2004 WL 194385 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004); and Nash v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1889589 (D.Ariz. 2006).

[10] The Mormon money crime cases are People v. Marsh 22 Cal.Rptr. 117, Cal.App. 1962; People v. Marsh, 58 Cal.2d 732, 376 P.2d 300 (Cal. 1962); Groebner v. State, 342 So.2d 94 (Fla.App. 1977); U.S. v. Goodwin, 770 F.2d 631 (7th Cir. 1985);U.S. v. Miller, 984 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1993); U.S. v. Starnes, 14 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Adamson, 59 F.3d 176 (9th Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 1998); Brown v. Anderson, 164 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Giles, 966 P.2d 872 (Utah App. 1998); U.S. v. Anderson, 94 Fed.Appx. 487 (9th Cir. 2004); State v. Clifford, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2005); U.S. v. Thurston, 456 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2006); U.S. v. Gentry, 455 F.Supp.2d 1018 (D.Ariz. 2006); U.S. v. Cook, 2007 WL 130326 (W.D.Wash. 2007); and U.S. v. Johnson, 553 F.Supp.2d 582 (E.D.Va. 2008).

[11] The Mormon petty crime cases are U.S. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1979); Sanders v. State, Not Reported in P.2d, 1986 WL 1161159 (Alaska App. 1986); and Matter of Lybbert, 1993 WL 52802 (Cal.Bar Ct. 1993).

[12] The Jehovah murder cases are Herbert v. State, 357 So.2d 683 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); State v. Roussel, 424 So.2d 226 (La. 1982); People v. Hall, 114 Ill.2d 376, 499 N.E.2d 1335 (Ill. 1986); Townes v. Com., 234 Va. 307, 362 S.E.2d 650 (Va. 1987); People v. Macioce, 197 Cal.App.3d 262, 242 Cal.Rptr. 771 (Cal.App.6.Dist. 1987); Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Crim.App. 1994);Lowe v. State, 650 So.2d 969 (Fla. 1994); State v. Brett, 126 Wash.2d 136, 892 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995); People v. Young, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2000 WL 33521874 (Mich.App. 2000); Soria v. Johnson, 207 F.3d 232 (5^th Cir. 2000); People v. Thompkins, 191 Ill.2d 438, 732 N.E.2d 553 (Ill. 2000); People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 743 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. 2000); Bradley v. State, 787 So.2d 732 (Fla. 2001); People v. Nelson, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2003 WL 1958803 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2003); Allridge v. Cockrell, 92 Fed.Appx. 60 (5^th Cir. 2003); State v. Scott, 101 Ohio St.3d 31, 800 N.E.2d 1133 (Ohio 2004); People v. Jordan, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 15432 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2005);People v. Scharf, 2006 WL 1064479 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2006); Correll v. Ryan, 465 F.3d 1006 (9^th Cir. 2006); People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182, 158 P.3d 763 (Cal. 2007);  Matthews v. Sirmons,  2007 WL 2286239 (W.D.Okla. 2007);Evans v. State, 975 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 2007); Correll v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 938 (9^th Cir. 2008); Ben-Sholom v. Ayers, 566 F.Supp.2d 1053 (E.D.Cal. 2008); People v. Bennett, 45 Cal.4th 577, 199 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2009); and Matthews v. Workman, — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2488142 (10^th Cir. 2009).

[13] The Jehovah’s Witnesses sex crime cases are Com. v. Doe, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 297, 393 N.E.2d 426 (Mass.App., 1979); Spivey v. State, 193 Ga.App. 127, 386 S.E.2d 868 (Ga.App. 1989); State v. Koelling, 1993 WL 150497 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1993); State v. Koelling,1995 WL 125933 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1995); Pascoe v. State, 1997 WL 61484 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997); Guzman v. Lacy, 1998 WL 512954 (S.D.N.Y.,1998); State v. Cheney-Shaw, 2000 WL 1231552 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2000); State v. Eisenhouer, 40 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. 2001); Smith v. State, 2001 WL 1608142 (Minn.App. 2001); State v. Blackstock, 147 N.H. 791, 802 A.2d 1169 (N.H. 2002); People v. Halverson, 2002 WL 1733247 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2002); U.S. v. Brown, 330 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2003);People v. Wolfenbarge, 2003 WL 22391135 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2003); People v. Johnson, 2004 WL 909242 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); People v. Scott, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2351590(Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2004); People v. Portillo, 2004 WL 2361583 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004);People v. Atencio, 2005 WL 2461918 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2005); State v. Patterson, 2005 WL 3475740 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2005); People v. Apodaca, 2008 WL 643084 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2008); and People v. Simental, 2009 WL 2426334 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009).

[14] The Jehovah’s witness violent crime cases are People v. Levan, 99 Ill.App.3d 310, 425 N.E.2d 1010 (Ill.App. 1981); Akridge v. State, 13 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000);State v. Huffman, 120 Wash.App. 1038 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2004); and State v. Lopez, 122 P.3d 838 (Kan.App. 2005).

[15] The Jehovah’s Witnnesses money crime cases are U.S. v. Hoker, 483 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1973); U.S. v. Thompson, 106 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 1997); State v. Bagley, 101 Conn.App. 653, 922 A.2d 1128 (Conn.App. 2007); Davis v. Macdonald, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2701580 (D.Mont. 2007); State v. Bazarte, 2007 WL 4105010 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2007); and State v. Smith, 2008 WL 2829275 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2008).

[16] The Jehovah’s Witnesses petty crime cases are U.S. v. Nedd, 262 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2001); Ploeger v. State, 189 S.W.3d 799 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2006) and People v. Hyung Joon Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078, 202 P.3d 436 (Cal. 2009)

[17] The Mormon “religious motive” cases are  State v. Lafferty, 749 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1988); U.S. v. Swapp,719 F.Supp. 1015 (D.Utah 1989); U.S. v. Swapp, 934 F.2d 326 (10th Cir. 1990); State v. Swapp, 808 P.2d 115 (Utah App. 1991); Lafferty v. Cook, 949 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir. 1991); U.S. v. Barlow, 41 F.3d 935 (5th Cir. 1994); U.S. v. Swapp, 198 F.3d 260 (10th Cir. 1999); State v. Lafferty, 20 P.3d 342 (Utah 2001); and Lafferty v. State, 175 P.3d 530 (Utah 2007). The Jehovah’s Witness “religious motive” cases is  is People v. Nelson, 2003 WL 1958803 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2003).

[18]  The Mormon “vehicle cases” are U.S. v. Goodwin, 770 F.2d 631 (7th Cir. 1985); State v. Hildreth, 267 Mont. 423, 884 P.2d 771 (Mont. 1994); State v. Davis, 670 A.2d 786 (R.I. 1996); State v. Burrell, 1997 WL 53455 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1997); U.S. v. Marsh, 144 F.3d 1229 (9th Cir. 1998); State v. Hessler, 90 Ohio St.3d 108, 734 N.E.2d 1237 (Ohio 2000); State v. Hopkins, 62 Conn.App. 665, 772 A.2d 657 (Conn.App. 2001);State v. Teters, 321 Mont. 379, 91 P.3d 559 (Mont. 2004); People v. Harward, 2004 WL 1282850 (Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2004); In re Grant O., 2004 WL 2251747 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); State v. Clifford, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (Mont. 2005); People v. Hettiger, 2005 WL 2143640 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2005); People v. Perez, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL 1776210 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); and Green v. State, 2008 WL 787282 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2008). The Jehovah’s Witnesses “vehicle” cases are Com. v. Doe, 8 Mass.App.Ct. 297, 393 N.E.2d 426 (Mass.App., 1979); U.S. v. Nedd, 262 F.3d 85 (1st Cir. 2001); Smith v. State, 2001 WL 1608142 (Minn.App. 2001); State v. Blackstock, 147 N.H. 791, 802 A.2d 1169 (N.H. 2002); People v. Halverson, 2002 WL 1733247 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.,2002); People v. Wolfenbarge, 2003 WL 22391135 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2003); People v. Scott, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2004 WL 2351590(Cal.App. 6 Dist. 2004); People v. Portillo, 2004 WL 2361583 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004);Ploeger v. State, 189 S.W.3d 799 (Tex.App.-Houston [1 Dist.] 2006); State v. Bazarte, 2007 WL 4105010 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2007); and People v. Simental, 2009 WL 2426334 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009).

[19] the Mormon “dicta” cases are Ferrin v. People, 164 Colo. 130, 433 P.2d 108 (Colo. 1967); State v. Giles, 966 P.2d 872 (Utah App. 1998); Snider v. State, 238 Ga.App. 55, 516 S.E.2d 569 (Ga.App. 1999); State v. El-Tabech, 259 Neb. 509, 610 N.W.2d 737 (Neb. 2000); People v. Adams, 2004 WL 194385 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2004); People v. Sayres, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 823 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); Tevaga v. McGrath, 2007 WL 2572245 (N.D.Cal. 2007); People v. Sayres, 2007 WL 3087944 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2007); and U.S. v. Johnson, 553 F.Supp.2d 582 (E.D.Va. 2008). The Jehovah’s Witnesses “dicta” cases are U.S. v. Hoker, 483 F.2d 359 (5th Cir. 1973); Herbert v. State, 357 So.2d 683 (Ala.Cr.App. 1978); State v. Roussel, 424 So.2d 226 (La. 1982); Townes v. Com., 234 Va. 307, 362 S.E.2d 650 (Va. 1987); People v. Macioce, 197 Cal.App.3d 262, 242 Cal.Rptr. 771 (Cal.App.6.Dist. 1987); State v. Koelling, 1993 WL 150497 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1993); State v. Koelling,1995 WL 125933 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1995); Guzman v. Lacy, 1998 WL 512954 (S.D.N.Y.,1998); State v. Davis, 318 Mont. 459, 81 P.3d 484 (Mont. 2003); State v. Patterson, 2005 WL 3475740 (Ohio App. 5 Dist. 2005); State v. Bagley, 101 Conn.App. 653, 922 A.2d 1128 (Conn.App. 2007); and Davis v. Macdonald, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 2701580 (D.Mont. 2007).

[20] The Mormon “object” cases are  People v. Marsh 22 Cal.Rptr. 117, Cal.App. 1962; People v. Marsh, 58 Cal.2d 732, 376 P.2d 300 (Cal. 1962); State v. Swenson, 62 Wash.2d 259, 382 P.2d 614 (WASH. 1963); State v. Moeller, 50 Haw. 110, 433 P.2d 136 (Hawaii 1967); Groebner v. State, 342 So.2d 94 (Fla.App. 1977); State v. Stone, 151 Ariz. 455, 728 P.2d 674 (Ariz.App. 1986); State v. Cox, 87 Or.App. 443, 742 P.2d 694 (Or.App.,1986); Gillespie v. State, 549 So.2d 640 (Ala.Cr.App. 1989); U.S. v. Miller, 984 F.2d 1028 (9th Cir. 1993); Brown v. Anderson, 164 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 1998); People v. Hansen, 2003 WL 22455820 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2003); State v. Genter, 872 So.2d 552 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Cook, 2007 WL 130326 (W.D.Wash. 2007); and U.S. v. Sutton, 2007 WL 1341400(D.Ariz. 2007). The Jehovah’s Witnesses “object” case are Hughes v. State, 897 S.W.2d 285 (Tex.Crim.App.,1994); Akridge v. State, 13 S.W.3d 808 (Tex.App.-Beaumont 2000); State v. Eisenhouer, 40 S.W.3d 916 (Mo. 2001); and People v. Apodaca, 2008 WL 643084 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2008).

[21] The Mormon “affirmative use” cases are People v. Bassett, 69 Cal.2d 122, 443 P.2d 777 (Cal. 1968); Castleberry v. State, 522 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr. 1974); U.S. v. Brown, 600 F.2d 248 (10th Cir. 1979); State v. Marvin, 124 Ariz. 555, 606 P.2d 406 (Ariz. 1980); People v. Willoughby,164 Cal.App.3d 1054, 210 Cal.Rptr. 880 (Cal.App.5.Dist.); State v. Foster, 467 So.2d 1254 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1985); Sanders v. State, Not Reported in P.2d, 1986 WL 1161159 (Alaska App. 1986); Com. v. Montanino, 27 Mass.App.Ct. 130, 535 N.E.2d 617 (Mass.App.Ct. 1989); Wilson v. State, 105 Nev. 110, 771 P.2d 583 (Nev. 1989); State v. Romero, 120 Idaho 255, 815 P.2d 453 (Idaho 1991); U.S. v. Tilton, 34 M.J. 1104 (ACMR 1992); Matter of Lybbert, 1993 WL 52802 (Cal.Bar Ct. 1993); U.S. v. Starnes, 14 F.3d 1207 (7th Cir. 1994); State v. Otte, 1994 WL 590556 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1994); U.S. v. Adamson, 59 F.3d 176 (9th Cir. 1995); Clark v. State, 728 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); Rodriguez v. State, 1997 WL 527843 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997); Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1998); Robles v. Senkowski, 2002 WL 441153 (S.D.N.Y. 2002); State v. Hessler, 2002 WL 1379249 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. 2002); U.S. v. Anderson, 94 Fed.Appx. 487 (9th Cir. 2004); People v. Lind, 2004 WL 1427134 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); State v. Parks, 2004 WL 1936404 (Tenn.Crim.App. 2004); Phillips v. Travis, 6 Misc.3d 1041(A), 800 N.Y.S.2d 354 (N.Y.Sup. 2005); Pulido v. Lamarque, 2005 WL 6142229 (N.D.Cal. 2005); Nash v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1889589 (D.Ariz. 2006); U.S. v. Thurston, 456 F.3d 211 (1st Cir. 2006); People v. Serrano, 2006 WL 2498118 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2006); U.S. v. Gentry, 455 F.Supp.2d 1018 (D.Ariz. 2006); People v. Blanchard, , 2007 WL 1653098 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2007);People v. Halvorsen, 42 Cal.4th 379, 165 P.3d 512 (Cal. 2007); Otte v. Houk, 2008 WL 408525 (N.D.Ohio 2008); Hill v. State, 377 S.C. 462, 661 S.E.2d 92 (S.C. 2008); People v. Carpenter, 2009 WL 776113 (Cal.App. 4 Dist. 2009); Forrest v. State, — S.W.3d —-, 2009 WL 1674922 (Mo. 2009). The Jehovah’s Witnesses “affirmative use” cases are People v. Levan, 99 Ill.App.3d 310, 425 N.E.2d 1010 (Ill.App. 1981); People v. Hall, 114 Ill.2d 376, 499 N.E.2d 1335 (Ill. 1986); Spivey v. State, 193 Ga.App. 127, 386 S.E.2d 868 (Ga.App. 1989); State v. Halcomb, 1 Neb.App. 681, 510 N.W.2d 344 (Neb.App. 1993); Lowe v. State, 650 So.2d 969 (Fla.,1994); State v. Brett, 126 Wash.2d 136, 892 P.2d 29 (Wash. 1995); Hall v. Washington, 106 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 1997); U.S. v. Thompson, 106 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 1997); People v. Young, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2000 WL 33521874 (Mich.App. 2000); Soria v. Johnson, 207 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2000); People v. Thompkins, 191 Ill.2d 438, 732 N.E.2d 553 (Ill. 2000); State v. Cheney-Shaw, 2000 WL 1231552 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 2000); People v. Hall, 195 Ill.2d 1, 743 N.E.2d 126 (Ill. 2000);Bradley v. State, 787 So.2d 732 (Fla.,2001); Evans v. State, 800 So.2d 182 (Fla. 2001); U.S. v. Brown, 330 F.3d 1073 (8th Cir. 2003);Allridge v. Cockrell, 92 Fed.Appx. 60 (5th Cir. 2003); State v. Scott, 101 Ohio St.3d 31, 800 N.E.2d 1133 (Ohio 2004); State v. Huffman, 120 Wash.App. 1038 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2004); People v. Johnson, 2004 WL 909242 (Cal.App. 5 Dist. 2004); People v. Jordan, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2005 WL 15432 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 2005);People v. Atencio, 2005 WL 2461918 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 2005); State v. Lopez, 122 P.3d 838 (Kan.App. 2005);U.S. v. Santos, 406 F.Supp.2d 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); People v. Scharf, 2006 WL 1064479 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 2006); Correll v. Ryan, 465 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2006); People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182, 158 P.3d 763 (Cal. 2007); Matthews v. Sirmons, 2007 WL 2286239 (W.D.Okla. 2007); Evans v. State, 975 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 2007); Correll v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2008); Ben-Sholom v. Ayers, 566 F.Supp.2d 1053 (E.D.Cal. 2008); State v. Smith, 2008 WL 2829275 (N.J.Super.A.D. 2008); People v. Bennett, 45 Cal.4th 577, 199 P.3d 535 (Cal. 2009); People v. Hyung Joon Kim, 45 Cal.4th 1078, 202 P.3d 436 (Cal. 2009); and Matthews v. Workman, — F.3d —-, 2009 WL 2488142 (10th Cir. 2009).

[22] See note 17.

[23] see note 17.

[24] The Mormon “bad upbringing” cases are Clark v. State, 728 So.2d 1117 (Ala.Crim.App. 1996); Ex parte Clark, 728 So.2d 1126 (Ala. 1998); Nash v. Schriro, 2006 WL 1889589 (D.Ariz. 2006);  and Otte v. Houk, 2008 WL 408525 (N.D.Ohio 2008).  The Jehovah’s Witnesses  “bad upbringing” cases are  State v. Halcomb, 1 Neb.App. 681, 510 N.W.2d 344 (Neb.App. 1993); Lowe v. State, 650 So.2d 969 (Fla.,1994); Allridge v. Cockrell, 92 Fed.Appx. 60 (5^th Cir. 2003); Correll v. Ryan, 465 F.3d 1006 (9^th Cir. 2006); People v. Stevens, 41 Cal.4th 182, 158 P.3d 763 (Cal. 2007); Evans v. State, 975 So.2d 1035 (Fla. 2007); Correll v. Ryan, 539 F.3d 938 (9^th Cir. 2008); and Ben-Sholom v. Ayers, 566 F.Supp.2d 1053 (E.D.Cal. 2008).

[25] Allridge v. Cockrell, 92 Fed.Appx. 60 (5^th Cir. 2003).

Ritchie has said: ‘I want to be part of a culture that dares to asks questions and can live with uncomfortable or no answers’.  Further, he has said ‘I appreciate Sunstone [or other open forums for discussion] not because I agree with everything that is said.  I agree with precious little that is said, here or anywhere else.  But I defend with passion the right to say it’ [1].

Kathleen Flake in a profound and challenging Sunstone presentation has said “First stories are very important.  They are the ones we go back to again and again to understand the present and to envision our future possibilities… [Beginnings]  are a function of making meaning out of the past to explain the present and construct the future” [2].  The Grand Council is such a story.  Therefore how we understand it has important implications for the Church’s future possibilities. 

Moses 4 seems to indicate that there was some sort of discussion about the Plan. It is difficult to tell much from this but at the very least Lucifer’s views were heard.  Further he had the chance, it seems, to be persuasive enough to have some agree with his point of view.  So far this all seems quite friendly, almost like a Sunstone symposium session. 

Then God ends the discussion with a definitive declaration of his plan.  Although there is an idea that people could still choose which side to vote for; the implication was that either you follow God’s plan or you are banished.  Thus if we accept the Grand Council as our archetypal council meeting what message does this present to us.  The basic message seems to be: discussion is good until the answer is given.  Yet, what inspires me about Bonner Ritchie’s ideas is that such open discussion and, more importantly for me, the raising of questions is a process that attempts to transcend the paradoxes of faith.  He suggests that there are not always answers to the questions or issues that are raised but learning to deal with this tension is spiritually healthy.  That resonates with me in a way that the Grand Council does not. 

As a result, I believe, that unless this archetype can be re-interpreted, the vision that Ritchie has will never be realised, because there will always be a strong ‘doctrinal’ foundation for the view that: discussion is good until the answer is given.

Have I mis-interpreted the Grand Council?

How else can we interpret this narrative?

Can Bonner Ritchie’s vision be realised without a need to re-interpret these scriptural archetypes?

Notes:

1. J. Bonner Ritchie, Pillars of my Faith delivered at Sunstone. Available Here.

2. Kathleen Flake, Evil’s Origin and Evil’s End in the Joseph Smith Translation of Genesis in Sunstone [Salt Lake City, UT.: Sunstone Education Foundation, 1998] p. 25.

The third ward verses the seventh ward. Us verses them. Insiders verses outsiders. My buddies and I were third warders. We were full of ourselves. But why wouldn’t we be? Our ward display case was full of softball trophies. Our scouting program was full of Eagle scouts. Our report cards were full of A’s. And our bulletin board was full of missionary photos. By comparison, the guys in the seventh ward had few of those things. I needed those guys, but only to remind me how low they were. The lower I made them out to be, the higher I stood. Loving my neighbor didn’t apply to the seventh ward.

Dan arrived in town and moved into the seventh ward when he and I were about thirteen years old. He was a nice enough kid, but ward boundaries made him an outsider. I had my third ward friends. He just wasn’t one of them.

One day in a junior high school science class, Dan sat down on the tip of pencil I happened to be holding. I felt bad for doing it, but not bad enough to have kept me from doing it in the first place.

Dan and I attended the same schools, same dances, same seminary, and had our missionary farewells and homecomings in the same building. But our paths seldom crossed. As adults, we went our separate ways. In my early thirties, my young family and I moved into Dan’s ward. I was called to be his home teacher, and got to know him for the first time.

Dan worked as an Electronics Technician, and had made a career as a civilian working for the Goverment. He was skilled with circuit boards and other electrical doodads that would undoubtedly boggle my mind. As a fix-it man, he’d take stuff that didn’t work and turn it into stuff that did work.

I became a Licensed Professional Counselor. As such, I had developed the capacity to feel empathy for virtually all my clients, to enter their world in a sense, and validate them for their good and encourage them to do better. Multiple forces created them and multiple course corrections lay within their grasp. They often chose paths I wouldn’t have taken, but that was okay. I honored their right to exercise their agency, and believed any attempt to manipulate or coerce them violated the principle we all stood for in a distant veiled time and place.

Dan had grown into an outgoing, friendly, and respected man, both at work and in his ward. He cultivated rich and lasting friendships, and generously included me in his circle of friends. His generosity stung my adult conscience. Dan and his wife,  hosted parties and barbeques, and opened up their swimming pool—possibly the only one in the whole town—to our families.

Dan, the conversationalist, and I, the professional listener, served each other well. He shared many stories from his childhood, and I began to see that, even though we had attended church in the same building, we had outrageously different experiences. While my buddies and I were studying chemistry together, many of the boys in his neighborhood were practicing the art of “better living through chemicals.” While our priest quorum advisor taught us to respect women, his advisor had the boys make an oath of secrecy before introducing them to his pornography stash. “You can’t tell anyone,” the advisor advised. “People won’t understand.” When our Sunday school teacher taught us the sacred value of chastity, his told the kids that it was all a big lie, that he and his girlfriend were having sex, that there was nothing wrong with it, and then he encouraged his students to share how far they’d gone. And while I taught the gospel and encouraged people to join the church as a young missionary, Dan’s mission president manipulated, coerced, and intimidated the missionaries into implementing a teaching program based on manipulation, coercion, and intimidation.

I wondered how I would have responded to a priest quorum advisor who used Play Boy and Hustler as lesson manuals. How would I have responded to a coercive mission program, especially after learning late in my mission that the program originated with the presiding general authority and my mission president despised the program as much as I did?

Dan seemed none the worse for wear. He had become a high priest and served where called, including positions of leadership. He even sat in judgment with other leaders and occasionally joined with them to turn insiders into outsiders.

I added his stories to hundreds of others I’d heard over the years and placed them on a shelf in my personal library. Other prominent stories in my library came from my work with victims of domestic violence. I had learned through their remarkably similar stories that trauma is usually the result of violated expectations. When a priesthood-bearing husband violates his wife’s expectation of respect, then she quite naturally loses respect for him. Her respect for “the priesthood,” however, usually remains intact. If, however, when she seeks help from “the Church,” and finds “the priesthood” aligning with her husband, then often the violation is too great to bear. She learns that not only is she married to an abuser, but that she is a member of an abusive church. The Church ceases to be “true” for her because her expectations have been violated at a foundational level. Sometimes she loses her faith in God, or perhaps worse, that if God exists, He’s the lead despot in a kingdom of aspiring despots.

After living in Dan’s ward for some six years, Sarah and I decided for the second time in our marriage to move far from our home communities—this time to a small town on an island in the pacific. I kept occasional contact with Dan for the next several years. He was fine. New home, new ward, new community. Promotions, raises, and professional success. Then last winter Dan called and told me he’d been reading about DNA and Book of Mormon archeology. “Did you know about that?” he asked.

“Yes, I’ve read a bit,” I said.

“And that book by Ferguson? My dad bases his testimony on that book. Did you know the author left the church?”

“Yes, I remember reading that.”

“How come you never told me?”

“What would I have said?”

“You know,” he said, “I used to tell my investigators that archeologists used the Book of Mormon to help them know where to dig.”

Dan found a listening ear with me—something not always easy to do when discussing the darker aspects of LDS history. He became consumed with discovering the truth. Every Google search result dripped burning acid on his foundational church circuit board. The Kinderhook Plates, the Book of Abraham, The Nauvoo Expositor, Adam/God, scriptural revisions and reversals, first vision accounts, peep stones, the Masons and the temple endowment, and the ugly details surrounding polygamy; standard fare for anti-Mormons. Each new discovery produced a new violation of his expectations until his expectations changed, and then each new discovery confirmed his new expectations. Always a man of deep integrity and still a conversationalist, Dan shared his findings with his wife, his neighbors, and his friends. Some would tell him, “Dan, I’ve learned to put those questions on the shelf for now.”

“You’ve got a mighty big shelf,” Dan would reply.

I spoke to him as a counselor would speak to a client, disclosing little of my own doubts and fears. We discussed Fowler’s stages of change, the process of grief, personality theory, our own family of origin issues, and the relativity of agency. One day he said, “What I did to those people on my mission was wrong. We actually lured people to the church to watch a movie, and then we’d take them in little classrooms and block the door until they got the right answer. I had women in tears. I hated it at first, but after a while I felt proud at how good I was at overcoming objections. I’d apologize if I could.”

We discussed the fact that his was not the only mission where such tactics were used.

“It didn’t start with us, ” he said, “and others have done far worse. I didn’t isolate young girls and women, some of them already married, and tell them they’d go to hell if they didn’t marry me.”

“You know, Dan. Some people consider those words to be blasphemy.”

“But if it’s true, isn’t is blasphemy not to speak them?”

Silence.

“I don’t get it. The general authority who forced us to force people into the church gets up in general conference and bears his testimony. But if I dare mention the truth, then I’m at risk of excommunication.”

“We’re not very good at loving our enemies,” I said.

“Mountain Meadows?”

“A little dramatic, but the same concept.”

“But I’m not bragging about killing the prophet.”

“No, but you’re slam dunking our image of the prophet.”

Silence.

“Move slowly, Dan. You’re not the first to walk this path.”

“No, but it’s my first time.”

“Some come out stronger for it.”

“I’ve got bishops taking me out for lunch, and family and friends praying for my apostate soul.”

“I believe an apostate is someone who fails to honor his own conscience. Some people who stay in the church are apostates, and some people who leave are saints.”

“Now that’s apostate,” Dan said. “And I couldn’t agree more.”

Dan scares me. As a boy and young missionary, he survived a fair number of church related violated expectations. Now, as a middle-aged adult, his new beliefs separate him from the mainstream church. He’s become an outsider—one of them. Of course, the new Dan places tremendous stress on the key people in his life—his wife, family, and friends—and they are dealing with their own violated expectations. What makes a guy like Dan respond to church history the way he does? What keeps more of us from joining him? Why do we love those who investigate themselves into the church and despise those who investigate themselves out? Why is it okay for our leaders to declare they’re not perfect, but it’s not acceptable for members to actually discuss their mistakes and declare them to be so? And if we can’t discuss their mistakes, don’t we increase our chances of repeating them—just as Dan and thousands of other missionaries were coerced to do in their formative years? Is it courage or foolishness that motivates Dan to share his findings? Is it prudence or cowardice that keeps my mouth shut? Am I apostate for staying, apostate for holding back, or apostate for leaving “Zion” and hiding out in my isolated little town?

I don’t know for sure. Maybe I’m just the lukewarm water that God is going to spew out at the last day. But I do know that I’ve seen too much good to leave and too much bad to fully join in. At any rate, Dan’s right. I keep a mighty big shelf in my library. Sometimes I peruse a few pages, sometimes I speed read, and occasionally I concentrate enough to imprint violating images upon my mind. I squirm in the presence of my shelf. But it’s only one shelf in an entire library. I’m not willing to forget all the other shelves and the books and stories I keep on those shelves that have nourished me over the years.

Recently the Southwesterly winds stirred up the seas. I hiked with a friend to a stunning place named Pucker Point. Granite cliffs, some fifty feet high, defiantly jut into the incoming surge as if to say, “Bring it on. I can take it.”  Towering seawater walls exploded on the rocks, shooting tons of foaming water into the air, just out of our reach, and sometimes blocking our view of the sepia toned sky. I watched the waves roil and roll forward along each side of the point, until they rose up on land and then crashed back into themselves. I positioned myself on the edge of the cliff to maximize my terror. I imagined myself sitting in a kayak in a small section of relatively calm waters. And then my stomach tightened as the next wall buried my imaginary self.

Waves like these waves have been crashing against the edge of the earth for millions, if not billions of years. I am both repulsed and drawn to them. I sense that for now at least, I’ll continue to search them out and experience them, just close enough to quake in their presence but far enough to remain on solid rock.

Sometimes I wish for a safer world, a world without military bases, domestic violence therapists, large shelves, and mangled circuit boards. Our scriptures suggest such a world has existed, but as inspiring as it sounds, it makes for poor reading. Stories are born of conflict, contradiction, paradox, good and evil, and overwhelming need. When those things are gone, stories end. As long as human nature remains unchanged, there will always exist one ward verses another, us verses them, and insiders verses outsiders. And good people like Dan will continue to seek out truth, and be violated in the process. Like the churning seas, Dan’s stories and the stories of so many others both repulse and draw me closer. I want to mourn with those who find themselves on the outside—bruised and hurting, but I fear the consequences of retelling their stories and honoring their choices. “Perfect love casteth out fear.” I wouldn’t know. I realize now that fear has been a major motivator all my life. When I was kid, I didn’t win those softball trophies and I dropped out of scouts as a tenderfoot. I huddled close to my third ward friends partially because I was afraid I didn’t measure up, and I might find myself on the outside. And, as much as I hate to admit it, all these years later, fear continues to motivate me. Who would I be without it? How would my life be different if I enjoyed perfect love? Perhaps it’s ironic that I’m afraid to consider those questions too deeply.

I don’t know much for certain. But I know that the seas of the world are crashing against ancient rocks this very moment, and I would guess they’ll continue to do so long after my shelf and Dan ‘s circuit boards are lost and forgotten. As a kid, loving outsiders like Dan didn’t really matter to me—it wasn’t safe. More and more I’m coming to believe that loving Dan and everyone else is just about the only thing that really does matter—safe or not.

We’d like to thank our friend from Sunstone for submitting the above post

Please discuss

The reason I highlight this is because there are certain callings within the Church that make it impossible, or at least very unlikely, for you to have if you have been involved in certain activities.  I am sure that these people do not seek for these types of callings.  I highlight this as an apparent ‘inconsistency’ between scripture and practice.  For example, over the years there has been some flip-flopping on the issue of Divorce and being a Bishop.  It seems that with current levels of divorce so high that the Church can no longer not have those people as possible candidates, when in the past they have made that restriction.

Any records of Church disciplinary councils are kept at Church headquarters (they are destroyed after a short-time in the local areas) presumably so that callings that need to be ratified by the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve can check to see if there are any issues.  Further if an individual commits some sins then these become annotated permantly on your membership record.  An example here is being involved in child abuse or pornography.  This means that you cannot have callings with children.

How far then does forgiveness go?

Are there cases when this type of policy is justifiable?  If so which?

If we believe in true repentance why does the Church need to check their past, presumably because they want to see if they are likely to do something again in the future?  Is this faulty reasoning?

I was wondering who your heroes are these days?

We glorify celebrity and sports figures, who make millions of dollars with little or no contribution to society other than to provide fodder for the tabloids.  Some look up to business leaders but they sometimes turn out to be giant frauds, like Bernard Madoff who rip off people and tend to put themselves first instead of their companies and employees.

We have religious leaders who exemplify righteous principles, but we’ve seen just as many of those have issues as well with moral problems, money problems, abuse of power, etc. We can also look up to characters from the scriptures, but many believe those weren’t even real people.

Many of us had excellent parents and view them as our heroes and examples for our lives, but there are also many who suffered at the hands of their parents.

Maybe the concept of having heroes is out dated in our modern world?  What do you think?

Do you still have heroes?  Who are they and why?

One evening when my wife and I had the opportunity to reflect on the timeless story of Adam and Eve, it struck me that their different responses to God’s commandments, and to Lucifer’s “temptation”, perfectly exemplified the different mindsets of TBMs and NOMs, and symbolically portrayed the age-old struggle between Orthodox and Liberal in any faith. And as I meditated on their dramatic dialog with Lucifer, with each other, and with God, it donned on me that Adam and Eve were the perfect TBM-NOM couple.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the TBM and NOM labels, allow me to briefly explain. Generally speaking, the mantra of TBMs is “follow the Prophet” while the mantra of NOMs is “follow your conscience.” This is not to say that TBMs don’t believe in following their conscience, nor that NOMs don’t believe in following the Prophet. Rather, the main difference between TBMs and NOMs relates to who they believe holds the “trump card” in situations where their personal views differ from Church leaders’ views. In such cases, TBMs typically believe they must yield to the authority and judgment of Church leaders, while NOMs typically believe they must follow their conscience even at the expense of disobeying Church leaders. This deference to authority by TBMs, and deference to personal conviction by NOMs, is typically an outgrowth of their divergent views about Church history. TBMs truly believe the Church’s official historical narrative (which supports Church leaders’ exclusive claim to priesthood authority and their special status as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators), while NOMs disbelieve or seriously doubt the Church’s official history (and therefore seek a new order or approach that gleans all the goodness Mormonism has to offer while pruning away the doctrines and practices that don’t bear fruit for them). These divergent views about Church history are usually accompanied by differing views about the nature of prophets and apostles. TBMs typically view prophets and apostles as authoritative guides who “will never lead us astray” in spiritual, temporal, and even political affairs, while NOMs believe that even prophets and apostles unavoidably “see through a glass darkly” when it comes to discerning God’s will, and may therefore occasionally lead us astray despite their best and most sincere intentions — hence NOMs’ inclination to rely ultimately on their own convictions.

Because TBMs typically view Church history and prophetic accuracy as clear-cut, black-and-white matters, they typically view obedience to Church leaders as a simple choice between good and evil. By contrast, NOMs’ murky view of Church history and prophetic discernment causes them to view obedience to authority as a complicated challenge where one must constantly navigate through innumerable “gray areas” of inconsistency and ambiguity, continually confronting the dilemma of choosing between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods.

With that generalized description of TBMs and NOMs in mind, let’s examine how Adam and Eve exemplified these two different approaches.

Adam’s “TBM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Adam’s response to Lucifer when he suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit reflects a typical TBM mindset. When Lucifer suggests that Adam eat the forbidden fruit, Adam’s has an instant, knee-jerk rejection. With almost child-like disbelief that Lucifer would even dare suggest that Adam break the rules, Adam responds to Lucifer that because God told him not to eat the fruit, he would not eat it.

Adam’s response to Lucifer exemplifies the typical TBM mindset where all proposed actions are screened to determine whether they would conflict with any pronouncement by Authority, and if so, they are immediately rejected. Adam’s almost-automated thought process resembles that of a computer that refuses to do X simply because it was pre-programmed not to do X. Adam’s response to Lucifer demonstrates that he does not condition his obedience on his understanding or agreeing with God’s rationale for forbidding him from eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge; the mere fact that God has forbidden it is enough to persuade Adam not to do it.

Of equal significance is what Adam does not do when Lucifer suggests he eat the forbidden fruit. He does not carefully ponder Lucifer’s proposal before deciding to reject it; he does not weigh the pro’s and con’s of eating the forbidden fruit or consider how doing so might fit into God’s larger plan. Nor does Adam even consider the possibility that eating the forbidden fruit might actually be necessary to fulfill God’s other commandments. In addition, Adam does not engage in any dialog with Lucifer before deciding to quickly brush aside his suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit; Adam is clearly not interested in learning the rationale behind Lucifer’s suggestion. The mere fact that Lucifer is suggesting he do something that would violate one of God’s commandments is enough to cause Adam to completely distrust and discount Lucifer’s proposal.

In addition, it is interesting to note that when Lucifer tempted Adam to eat the forbidden fruit, he did so with the enticement that it would make Adam “wise”. Adam’s instant rejection of Lucifer’s offer to become wise through unapproved means demonstrates Adam’s absolute trust in Authority; it displays Adam’s confidence that if there is something important to know, God will reveal it to him in due time, and that he therefore need not go behind God’s back and obtain wisdom from alternative sources.

Although Adam’s TBM approach is admirable for the absolute trust and loyalty to God that it displays, it is sobering to recognize that Adam’s unquestioning and absolute obedience –if not tempered by Eve– would have ultimately prevented their spiritual development and unwittingly foiled God’s plan for all mankind. But to be fair to Adam and his like-minded TBMs, we can’t really blame them for taking God and his Prophets seriously when they speak. Just as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition, nobody expects God to tell us, whether personally or through his authorized representatives, not to do something that is actually necessary for our eternal progression.

Eve’s “NOM Response” to Lucifer’s Suggestion to Eat the Forbidden Fruit

Eve’s response to Lucifer’s suggestion to eat the forbidden fruit is the polar opposite of Adam’s. Rather than immediately rebuffing Satan, she actually engages in dialog with the enemy of righteousness. The notable fact that Eve does not immediately dismiss Lucifer’s suggestion to break God’s commandment seems to indicate that: (1) Eve’s mind is at least open to the possibility that God’s commandments must sometimes be broken; and (2) she must rely on her own judgment to determine whether, when, and how she should obey, rather than absolutely and unquestioningly obeying all commandments at all times.

When Lucifer suggests that Eve eat the forbidden fruit for the purpose of gaining knowledge, Eve apparently sees some merit in his unorthodox proposal. Apparently recognizing that knowledge of good and evil is a necessary part of her eternal progression, Eve considers Lucifer’s proposal further by asking whether disobeying God and eating the forbidden fruit is the only way to obtain that knowledge. It seems here that, unlike Adam, Eve intuits the concept of “necessary evil” — situations where we must break one of God’s laws in order to obey a higher law or accomplish a greater purpose. In such cases, technical disobedience to lesser laws enables obedience to higher laws — although the Adams of the Church (TBMs) may interpret such measured disobedience as just plain rebellion at worst, or a lukewarm commitment to God at best.

When Lucifer assures Eve there is no other way to obtain knowledge than by disobeying God’s commandment and partaking of the forbidden fruit, Eve believes Lucifer and partakes. Of course, Eve’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit could be seen as incredibly gullible and foolish. After all, how could she trust that Lucifer was telling her the truth when he said there was no other way to obtain knowledge? And how could she use Lucifer’s assurance as a basis to disregard God’s clear and direct command not to eat the forbidden fruit? Accordingly, Mother Eve’s act of disobedience has been viewed by many as the Original Sin for which she and all mankind have been deservedly punished.

But LDS leaders have taught that Mother Eve should be lauded and revered as a heroine of mankind for her decision to disobey God, not chastised and vilified as a disobedient rebel. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained:

When Adam and Eve received the first commandment, they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of procreation. . . .

For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a formality to serve an eternal purpose. . . .

It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. . . .

Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode called the Fall. (Dallin H. Oaks, “‘The Great Plan of Happiness’,” Ensign, Nov 1993, 72.)

Is it possible that one of the reasons God required a “willful breaking of a law” in Eden was to teach mankind the paradoxical principle that we sometimes need to disobey ecclesiastical authority and break “the rules” to fulfill God’s greater purposes for our existence? When I consider Brigham Young’s words: “I am fearful they [Church members] settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation,” I wonder, specifically what “purposes of God in [our] salvation” are “thwart[ed]” by “a reckless confidence” in our Church leaders? In light of the LDS doctrine that God’s purpose is to help us become like him, does Brigham Young’s statement mean that it is actually un-Godlike to give unquestioning, absolute Adam-like obedience to our ecclesiastical authorities? Was he advocating a more examined, Eve-like approach to decision-making that recognizes sometimes disobedience is paradoxically necessary to accomplish God’s greater purposes?

Adam’s Redeeming Love

Regardless of what people may think of Adam’s initial failure to recognize the wisdom of eating the forbidden fruit, his loving response to Eve when she informs him of her disobedience and inevitable expulsion from Eden more than redeems him. When Eve informs Adam of her disobedience to God, his choice is a stark one: become separated from Eve and remain innocent and uncompromisingly obedient in a sheltered paradise, or stay with Eve by joining in her disobedience and expulsion. Adam’s willingness to endure disapproval, chastisement, and exile to remain with Eve demonstrated that his love for her exceeded his concern for his own comfort, safety, and approval. By recognizing that the greatest good was to stay together with Eve, and that the greatest evil was to be separated from her, Adam demonstrated he ultimately understood what the Gospel is truly all about.

Adam the Head and Eve the Neck: Both Members of the Body of Christ

When I shared these thoughts with my wife after separately reflecting on the Adam and Eve story, she responded: “Those are interesting observations, but there’s one big problem with your theory: even though it was Eve who made the right decision, Adam was given stewardship over her.” And my wife was right. God’s decision to give Adam stewardship over Eve is another puzzle in an ancient story already filled with paradox. After all, if it was Eve whose “wisdom and courage” made humankind’s existence possible as Elder Oaks has explained, and if it was Adam who was too slow to figure out something as quickly as Eve, then why not just put Eve in charge?

My response to my wife’s valid observation was along the following lines:

You’re right that it seems unfair that Adam was put in charge when it was Eve’s wisdom and courage that led to the right decision and the right result, but that’s exactly how it works in the Church today too. Although the Adams of the Church are put in charge, it’s the Eve’s of the Church that ultimately set the Church’s course. Just about every major change in Church policy and practice has been preceded by a chorus of Eves pleading with the Adams in charge to implement a change of course. For example, Lowell Bennion publicly disagreed with the Church’s priesthood ban long before 1978 and was fired from his CES job as a result of his “rebellious” views. But when the Church abandoned the priesthood ban in 1978, Elder McConkie acknowledged to a conference of CES instructors that he and other prophets and apostles had previously spoken with “limited understanding” when they had supported the priesthood ban. So in effect, there you had an Adam of the Church acknowledging that the Eves of the Church had been right all along. So it’s like the mother said in My Big Fat Greek Wedding: the man may be the head of the family, but the woman is the neck, and she turns the head in whatever direction she wants.

In light of the lessons we learn from Adam and Eve’s divergent approaches to deferring to authority versus relying on personal judgment, perhaps TBMs and NOMs can show greater appreciation for one another. As the Apostle Paul said, we are all “the body of Christ, and members in particular.” (Cor. 12:27) Hopefully, none of us will ever be guilty of saying to another member of the body of Christ: “I have no need of thee.” (Cor. 12:21.) Hopefully, the Adams of the Church (TBM’s) can recognize the valuable role that the Eve’s in the Church (NOM’s) play in moving us all closer to a correct understanding of God’s will, even if occasionally it appears their calls for change seem to be rebellion, disobedience, or disrespect for authority. As the Apostle Paul taught, we must show proper respect to all members of the body of Christ, and particularly those members that seem less honorable: “those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour.” (Cor. 12:23.)

Likewise, hopefully the Eves of the Church can be patient and take hope in the understanding that the Adams of the Church have good motives: they want to obey God, they want to do what is right, and they want to protect and preserve the truths God has given us in times past. Although their role as guardians of truth causes them to view any proposed change of course with great suspicion, they do ultimately come to recognize the wisdom of the course changes proposed by the Eves of the Church, and on a timetable that, although not swift enough for some, hopefully occurs before large numbers of members of the body of Christ decide to amputate one another.

So here’s to Father Adam and Mother Eve’s opposing but complementary approaches to learning, to life, and to love.

We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, repentance; third, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Articles of Faith 1:4)

Another of the unique doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the gift of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, received following our baptism and during our confirmation as a member of the Church.

Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. (Acts 8:17)

…The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to have, whenever one is worthy, the companionship of the Holy Ghost.  More powerful than that which is available before baptism, it acts as a cleansing agent to purify a person and sanctify him from all sin.  (Bible Dictionary, Holy Ghost:Entry)

When we are close to the Holy Ghost, we can expect to receive personal revelation for ourselves and our family, special promptings to act, and confirmation of truth.  At times, when our personal worthiness is in question, we may feel far from the Holy Ghost and not receive the answers we seek.

But what happens to those who, through acts of sin, unbelief, or other reasons, distance themselves from the companionship of the Holy Ghost? After all, it is the very first commandment we are given after our baptism, to “Receive the Holy Ghost.”

And there were no gifts from the Lord, and the Holy Ghost did not come upon any, because of their wickedness and unbelief.”  (Mormon 1:14)

When the Spirit leaves:

• Can a person discern the things of God without the Holy Ghost as their guide?
• Do we lose our eternal perspective?
• Do we allow the things of lesser consequence to overshadow the things of greatest consequence?
• Do we feel a sense of loss from not having the Spirit with us constantly?
• Do we care?
• How do we get it back when we are troubled by doctrinal and historical issues?

Spirituality—being in tune with the Spirit of the Lord—is the greatest need of Latter-day Saints. We should strive for the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost all the days of our lives. When we have the Spirit, we will love to serve, we will love the Lord, and we will love those whom we serve. Spiritual-mindedness does not come without effort. We live in a very wicked world. We are surrounded with propaganda that evil is good and good is evil. False teachings abound that affect us. Almost everything that is wholesome, good, pure, uplifting, and strengthening is being challenged as never before.  One reason we are on this earth is to discern between truth and error. This discernment comes by the Holy Ghost, not just our intellectual faculties. (Ezra Taft Benson, Come unto Christ, p22)

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. (Moroni 10:5)