This is a topic that always excites some feeling, whether you are Mormon or not.  We all wonder about the legacy we will leave behind and what will be our life’s eulogy.

Boyd K. Packer has spoken twice on the topic of funerals, once in 1988, and again in a BYU devotional in 1996.  He clearly has some strong feelings on this topic.

Bishops should not yield the arrangement of meetings to members.  They should not yield the arrangement for funerals or missionary farewells to families.  It is not the proper order of things for members or families to expect to decide who will speak and for how long.  Suggestions are in order, of course, but the bishop should not turn the meeting over to them.  We are worried about the drift that is occuring in our meetings.

Funerals could and should be the most spiritually impressive.  They are becoming informal family reunions in front of ward members.  Often the Spirit is repulsed by humorous experiences or jokes when the time could be devoted to teaching the things of the Spirit, even the sacred things.

When the family insists that several family members speak in a funeral, we hear about the deceased instead of the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the comforting promises revealed in the scriptures.  Now it’s all right to have a family member speak at a funeral, but if they do, their remarks should be in keeping with the spirit of the meeting.

I have told my Brethren in that day when my funeral is held, if any of them who speak talk about me, I will raise up and correct them.  The gospel is to be preached.

I know of no meeting where the congregation is in a better state of readiness to receive revelation and inspiration from a speaker than they are at a funeral.  This privilege is being taken away from us because we don’t understand the order of things–the unwritten order of things–that relates to the administration of the Church and the reception of the Spirit.

Really?  A funeral?  I rather think that non-members and inactives would be put off by the lack of respect to the deceased.  It seems a little insensitive.  Whereas those who are members already have come to honor their dead.  Isn’t family supposed to come first?

This problem is similar to the problem of freedom of speech.  Do you only allow freedom of speech until someone says something you don’t like?  Those with less dogmatic viewpoints are also less likely to condemn the sweeping pronouncements of others for the same reason they don’t make them.  They may be more self-critical and more reluctant to express their opinions when those opinions will affect others.

Here are a few examples of this problem (many of these are included in the book David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism):

• Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine.  This was published without prior authorization from the FP under the most presumptuous title imaginable.  While Pres. McKay was highly incensed over it, requiring two apostles to research and find over 1000 errors in the book, no public correction was made other than to tell BRM that the book should not be republished.  BRM accepted the private correction, but repeatedly requested that the book be allowed to be republished.  Eventually, in his dotage, Pres. McKay gave a sufficiently cryptic response that BRM took it as license to republish.  Among the worst criticisms of the book:
  • It referred to the Roman Catholic church as the Church of the Devil, stating that this was what was meant by the Book of Mormon’s “harlot of the earth” reference.  It was so harsh that it caused RC Bishop Hunt, a friend to Pres. McKay, to come to Pres. McKay with tears in his eyes asking if this was what McKay thought of him.
  • It propounded the inaccurate “Cain” doctrine (borrowed from Protestantism) as justification of the Priesthood Ban.
  • It prohibited all caffeinated beverages from the Word of Wisdom (despite Pres. McKay’s own personal affinity for Coke).
  • And many many more . . .
• Ezra Taft Benson’s association with the John Birch Society.  As an apostle, Benson was staunchly anti-communist.  He quickly became enamored with the newly formed John Birch society and was repeatedly courted by founder Robert Welch to join the society and to use his apostolic influence to encourage other Mormons to join.  Pres. McKay refused to consent to both Benson’s membership and endorsement of the John Birch Society, but Benson persisted and even resorted to trickery to try to convince Pres. McKay to be featured on the cover of the monthly magazine of the society.  Again, no public disavowal of the organization or Benson’s tactics was ever made, and many members were led to believe that the church endorsed the John Birch Society.
• Joseph Fielding Smith’s Man, His Origin and Destiny.  The book states authoritatively (yet without authority) that evolution is false, a matter of Joseph Fielding Smith’s personal speculation.  David O. McKay specifically said he believed evolution was a true scientific principle; yet no corrective action was taken to diminish the book’s significance.
• Paul H. Dunn’s stories.  While not dogmatic, they are riddled with hyperbolic glurge that purports to “prove” the church is true, which can be faith demoting when individuals discover the stories are fictional.
• The Priesthood Ban.  This is a pretty basic one.  While David O. McKay was the first to acknowledge this was a policy (therefore “of man”) and not a doctrine (no originating revelation), there was no public repudiation of the rampant racist rhetoric of the time until much later when the ban had been removed, and the rhetoric had continued in justification.  In fact, this is a great example of a time when Bruce R. McConkie (much later) fell on the sword publicly, apologetically stating that the things they had said were all wrong.
• Spencer W. Kimball’s Miracle of Forgiveness.  This was written in 1969 and contains errors that are potentially harmful to those who read it if they are in a vulnerable emotional state or prone to take things far too seriously, such as:
  • It’s better to be killed than to be a rape victim.  This also implies that those who don’t die as a victim of a rape attempt were somehow willing participants, a particularly disturbing notion for both victims of rape and children of incest.
  • It states that wet dreams are sinful, implying that they are voluntary and not biological.
  • It has been criticized alternately as too harsh (by internal critics) and as un-Christian (by external critics) in diminishing the power of the atonement to redeem by focusing on human efforts.

In the above cases, the standing prophet was unwilling to make public correction, instead preferring to hope that the inaccurate information would die out on its own over time.  There was a desire not to reduce the influence of the General Authority who had erred in speculation through public correction.  The actual effect seems to have been that the tolerance and generosity of the standing prophets has caused these individuals’ voices to be the loudest of all, to the point that their doctrines and interpretations are mainstream or orthodox over the more tolerant religious views.

Is this the way of the world?  Do the loudest voices always win?  Are the loudest voices always the most harsh and dogmatic?  Was it always this way, or is this simply the current trend?  Or is this how we learn humility?  Is this a human condition that is just a natural byproduct of all organizations or a particularly Mormon trait?  Is this an example of those who act (those who prefer to take charge and define requirements for others) vs. those who are acted upon (those who prefer to “go with the flow,” or be passive & tolerant)?

Discuss.

Surely, you have seen some of these folks:

• instead of communicating their true feelings, they use hackneyed cliche phrases (that are uniquely Mormon) to fit in
• they give the VT lesson never deviating to share their own true feelings unless those feelings could have been uttered by Julie Beck herself
• they prefer the standard Sunday School answers rather than thinking and sharing their own reflections
• they exercise a form of brand management:  doing the things that spell out “I’m a good Mormon,” and hiding anything that detracts from that image
• they are excessively careful of everything they say and do from a PR standpoint for the church

What would you do if every time you wanted to talk to your spouse, you had to consider the church in the relationship?  What if every time your child wanted advice from you, you referred them to what a church leader said or taught instead of sharing yourself with them?  What if every relationship was colored by your feelings of guilt or anticipation related to your own spiritual standing?

• Every family member or friend’s struggle would be a sign of your guilt for having failed them OR a sign that you should cut them off so you will not be tainted by association.
• Every new person you met would be an opportunity for a convert rather than a friend (and if not a convert, not a friend).
• You would carefully choose your words and deeds to demonstrate to others around you that you are living up to what you think they expect.
• If you ever did disagree with someone, you’d have to make sure that somehow your disagreement put YOU on the side of the church and THEM on the other side.
• If your spouse suddenly stopped attending church or became disaffected, you would stop loving them because they jeopardized your “perfect” image or your expectations for the Celestial Kingdom.

Matthew quotes Jesus as saying (Matt 10:34-37):

34 Think not that I am come to send ^apeace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s ^afoes shall be they of his own ^bhousehold.

37 He that ^aloveth father or mother ^bmore than me is not worthy of me: and he that ^cloveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

It seems that this comes with a few caveats:

• The church does not equal Jesus, even if one believes Jesus is at the head of it.  The church is a human institution that should ideally inspire us and draw us closer to Him.
• It’s pretty arrogant to put yourself (or your perceptions) in the role of Jesus and to assume that anyone who disagrees with you is rejecting you as the Savior was rejected.
• Being righteous does not equal being right.  In fact, once you start getting too concerned about the latter, you can kiss the former goodbye.
• The greatest two commandments are to love God and our fellow man as ourselves.  If we can’t even unconditionally love those closest to us (family and friends), how can we expect to love our enemies (also required)?
• “Perfect love casteth out fear.”  We can’t love people if we are consumed by fear of rejection (from either man or God).

Is this a particular problem in the church?  Do people really live their lives like this?  Do you know anyone like this?  Are you like this sometimes?  How do you take off the mask and “let your light so shine”?  Discuss.

For example, I remember hearing the song Blinded by the Light when I was growing up.  It seemed to be on the radio all the time.  For years, I thought the lyric was “wrecked up like a douche, you know the roller in the night.”  I had no idea what that meant.  Something to do with women in floppy hats on TV selling Massengill products I figured.  Now I know that the lyric is “racked up like a deuce, you know the roller in the night.”  So, apparently it’s about gambling, not about feminine products at all.

Or consider this cryptic line from Jimi Hendrix’s hit:  “‘Scuze me, while I kiss this guy.”  Hey, it was the 70s.  Live and let live.

And there are some songs out there that just defy decryption:  parts of Shout by the Isley Brothers and Fame by David Bowie come to mind.  I’m sure you can now find lyrics of these on line, but I defy anyone to figure it out without them.  I also think these are songs that are just partly made up as they go along.

Which brings us to hymns.  The hymns are actually written out, right in front of you.  So, how is it that people get the lyrics wrong?  There are a few varieties of botched hymn lyrics:

• Changed hymns.  I can think of two specific examples that are sometimes sung incorrectly because they have been changed from their original words:
  • 86 How Great Thou Art. Any convert to the church will tell you that the original lyrics are “the works thy hands have made” (changed in our hymn book to “worlds thy hands have made” presumably for theological reasons) and “I hear the mighty thunder” (changed in our hymn book to “I hear the rolling thunder” presumably for poetic reasons).
  • 85 How Firm a Foundation. The lyric used to be “You who unto Jesus for refuge have fled,” but was changed in the 1985 hymn book to “Who unto the Savior for refuge have fled.”
• Intentionally “funny” lyrics.  When I was a kid, we used to amuse ourselves by adding the phrase “in the bathtub” to the ends of the titles of hymns.  But there are also hymns that kids like to change to be funny.  There are two I can think of off the top of my head:
  • 30 Come, Come Ye Saints. Instead of “no toil nor labor fear,” kids have been known to sing “no toilet paper here,” a more fitting lyric for the pioneer trek perhaps.
  • 144 Secret Prayer. In Spanish, missionaries like to change the lyric “con el cielo comunion” (meaning communion with Heaven) to “con el suelo comunion” (meaning communion with the floor).
• Mistakes.  Some hymns are mistakenly sung incorrectly, at times changing the meaning of the lyric.

• 5 High on the Mountain Top (verse 2):  “For God remembers still / His promise made of old / That he on Zion’s hill / Truth’s standards would unfold.” Correction:  “Truth’s standard would unfold.”  He’s unfolding a flag, people, not a list of behavioral rules.  This seems like a telling mistake.
• 239 Choose the Right (verse 3):  “Choose the right / in all labors you’re pursuing / Let God in Heaven be your goal.”  Correction:  “Let God and Heaven be your goal.”  Not as really significant a mistake, but it shifts the focus from the worship of deity to one’s own exaltation when sung correctly.
• 76 God of Our Fathers, We Come Unto Thee.  The chorus says “Never! Never! Never from thee let us stray!  Ever!  Ever!  Ever to thee will we pray!”  However, I’ve heard all the Never / Ever stuff sometimes get tongue-tied and come out backwards, changing the meaning pretty radically.

So, what other deviations have you heard at church when people are singing the hymns?  Any Primary songs that have been modified by unwitting congregants?  Discuss.

Today we have a guest post from Bishop Mike T. Young of the Spanish Fork 401st Ward.

During the Sunday School discussion this week, as it frequently does, the topic turned to Satan and how he’s everywhere and into all our business, trying desperately to lead us astray with the help of The Liberal Media. Honestly, I’m not sure how Satan really made it before the age of television, movies and recorded music. Did Renaissance mothers warn their children of the evils of the lute-players and picket the gay Shakespearean actors?

All this talk about Satan led me to ponder on the subject for some time, and after waking up from my intense pondering I felt warmed by the Spirit, although it could have just been the chili. Satan remains an enigma, but here are a few of my thoughts to help build some discussion.

Let’s face it, Satan is one hell of a dedicated guy, or as my mother would say, “he’s been a real trooper.”

For over six thousand years on earth, The Evil One has shown tireless dedication to The Plan and has played his role of opposition to perfection. Think about that – Perfection. It’s been pure busting-his-hump-evil for all these thousands of years. He’s had no long weekends, no vacations, and has had to serve as a role model for billions of other pathological liars, thieves, psychopaths, and pig-body-snatchers. The only real benefit I can think of is not having to worry about rising health-care costs. That we could all be so dedicated!

Over this time he’s been called the worst of names: The Dragon, the Devil, the Tempter, a snake – and those are just the English names. Rumor has it that the Italians and Spaniards are much harsher.

So, what’s in it for Satan for playing this role perfectly for all these millennium? Eternal damnation. Yup, all this hard work and it’s, “Thanks giving us a perfect 100%, now off to Outer Darkness.” I can’t imagine what this Outer Darkness would be like, other than really crowded. We’ve been told that 1/3 of the pre-mortal spirits choose, for some reason, to go to The Dark Side – way before Anakin Skywalker made it hip.

Counting those that have lived on the earth, we would have to be approaching 50 billion full-time evil-doers. That’s more evil spirits than McDonald’s has served in hamburgers. And I believe we’re only counting humans here, not Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons, etc. Regardless, it’s going to shoulder-to-shoulder in that Outer Darkness. Even if Satan was only to give a quick 5-second air-high-five to all these followers, it would take him over 475,000 years. I suppose there won’t be much else to do in The Darkness than gnash teeth, so the high-fives might serve as a welcomed distraction.

Satan’s also had to put up with a real drop-off in main-stream support lately. Back in the day, there were witches, demons, possessed animals, etc., all over the place. Then, people really got it together and started burning the witches. Well, sometime in the eighteenth century the interest in witchcraft as a career really fell out of favor with the ladies. These days, it’s just the nuts that claim to be witches, and anyone that witnesses a body-possession is put away for their own safety. There still exists some childhood fears of monsters, but overall it seems that Satan’s golden years are behind him.

Through all of this general decline in interest, Satan still keeps plugging away. Year, after year.

And just think – all Satan would have to do to completely thwart The Plan would be to sit down and do absolutely nothing. Do no evil, provide no opposition, refuse to do his part – just, do nothing at all. Within a minute, he could turn the whole Plan upside-down and really stick it to the Man. Surely I’m missing something here. It just seems too easy.

So hopefully, Satan doesn’t read blogs and has more evil things to do than surf the Net. I’d hate to be held accountable for providing Satan with the idea of how to wreck The Plan and leave us to our own evil devices. It certainly didn’t work out well for those Lord of the Flies kids. It’d be a dark day indeed if we had to focus on fixing ourselves instead of blaming The Evil One.

Always Feeding the Sheep,

Bishop Mike T. Young

This trend is probably to some extent backlash against the histo-centric year we are having with D&C as focus of GD class and JS manual in RS.  There may also be some desire to reaffirm our status as Christians when other religions often stigmatize us as not being Christian.  So, what would it look like if Christ were the center of our worship?  Here are some possibilities of how lessons & talks might be more Christ-centric:

1. the atonement of Christ; his role and divinity
2. how to apply Christ’s teachings:  how to be followers of Christ
3. stories from the life of Christ, events that happened to him in his lifetime
4. the parables of Jesus – sharing and elaborating on these messages
5. how to develop a personal relationship with Jesus; understanding Jesus’ nature as a personal friend

Have I missed any major angle above?  It occurs to me that these topics might get stale if covered for 3 hours every week.  Also, if speakers only focused on 1 or 2 of the 5, it would get very repetitive.  I also notice that as I look over the list, I don’t find them equally appealing.  Personally, I would prefer them in this order:  2, 4, 3, 5, 1.  What order would you prefer?  I think the order in which they are usually focused at church is the order I listed them above:  1, 2, 3, 4, 5.  Do you agree?

Do you feel that Church should be more Christ-centered or that it is sufficiently Christ-centered?  Which of the above focuses would be of the most interest to you?  Are there some ways of focusing on Christ that you don’t find appealing?  How do you think our focus (especially by topic) compares to other Christian churches?  Discuss.

Here’s the parable:

51 Behold, I will liken these kingdoms unto a man having a field, and he sent forth his servants into the field to dig in the field.  (What exactly are they digging for?)

52 And he said unto the first: Go ye and labor in the field, and in the first hour I will come unto you, and ye shall behold the joy of my countenance.  (So, rather than a team huddle and off they go, he talks to them one at a time.)

53 And he said unto the second: Go ye also into the field, and in the second hour I will visit you with the joy of my countenance.  (What if the guy is skylarking?  I don’t think he’s going to get “the joy of his master’s countenance” in that case.)

54 And also unto the third, saying: I will visit you;

55 And unto the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, is this about the twelve apostles specifically and seeing the face of the Savior?  Otherwise, why 12?)

56 And the lord of the field went unto the first in the first hour, and tarried with him all that hour, and he was made glad with the light of the countenance of his lord.  (Light and joy seem to be synonymous here.)

57 And then he withdrew from the first that he might visit the second also, and the third, and the fourth, and so on unto the twelfth.  (So, he withdraws from the first.  He can’t visit everyone all at once.  Only one at a time.)

58 And thus they all received the light of the countenance of their lord, every man in his hour, and in his time, and in his season— (They received it, but it was time bound when it was “expedient”?)

59 Beginning at the first, and so on unto the ^alast, and from the last unto the first, and from the first unto the last;  (This only showed from the first to the last, but then it goes on to add from the last to the first and the first to the last.  Does he do this 3 times in reverse order in between?)

60 Every man in his own ^aorder, until his hour was finished, even according as his lord had commanded him, that his lord might be glorified in him, and he in his lord, that they all might be glorified.  (So, they got a full hour with the lord in which they and the lord were both glorified.)

61 Therefore, unto this parable I will liken all these ^akingdoms, and the ^binhabitants thereof—every kingdom in its hour, and in its time, and in its season, even according to the decree which God hath made.  (Earthly kingdoms or 3 degrees of glory?  Are these planets?)

62 And again, verily I say unto you, my ^afriends, I leave these ^bsayings with you to ^cponder in your hearts, with this commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall ^dcall upon me while I am near— (So, the Lord is not always near?  Does that mean sometimes he won’t hear us?)

• Who are the servants?  Everyone?  The 12 apostles?  Prophets through time?  Those that are called or who seek the Lord’s face?  Only those who have received the second comforter?
• Why are the workers sent out one at a time, each in his season?  Are the workers all working alone like the kids in “Holes”?  Does this mean it refers to our time on earth?
• What is the significance of the workers digging in a field, but with no other specified purpose?  Is the digging symbolic of something (e.g. seeking for treasure, preparing the ground for planting), or is it meant to signify a meaningless and mundane yet difficult and dirty task?
• What is the “joy of my countenance”?  Seeing the face of God literally (the second comforter)?  Receiving inspiration?  Obtaining a testimony or other spritual experience?  This is a phrase unique to this passage of scripture (“light of thy countenance” is also in Psalms; “full of joy with thy countenance” is found in Acts.)

Discuss.

First of all, here’s what it says:

64 Whatsoever ye ^aask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is ^bexpedient for you;

65 And if ye ask anything that is not ^aexpedient for you, it shall turn unto your ^bcondemnation.

Expediency.  The definition of “expediency” is:  1. fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances. or 2.  conducive to advantage or interest.  Expediency is a big JS word.  It appears 52 times in the BOM and 27 times in the D&C.  It only appears 7 times in other scripture:  John uses it 3 times and Paul uses it 4 times.

• Do people pray for things that they don’t think are expedient?  Don’t they ask for something because they think it’s what they need?  So, is this a caution against being too specific in what you ask for?  Or against misunderstanding what’s proper under the circumstances or advantageous to you?  Doesn’t that notion contradict this one:

Luke 11: 11-13:  11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?  12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?  13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give ^athe Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

• Is something expedient for some people and not for others?  Can I ask for something and get it, but if you ask for it, it will turn unto your condemnation?
• How expedient is expedient?  What if something is kind of expedient, but then the time has just passed?  (Like OC translating was no longer expedient, “Sorry time’s up, thank you for playing.”)

Condemnation.  This doesn’t specify whether you will get it or not if it’s not expedient, just that it will be for your condemnation. 

• Does that mean that if God doesn’t give you what you asked for (I keep picturing a vending machine), that it wasn’t expedient and now you’d better duck because condemnation is coming?  Can nothing happening or just not getting it be the ”condemnation”?
Does God ever give you the thing that wasn’t expedient, and him giving it to you is in fact how it turns to your condemnation?  (An ironic twist – that’s how it works on Fairly Oddparents anyway).
What kind of condemnation is this we’re talking about?  Full-on raging condemnation or something mild that goes away with an over-the-counter salve?

Discuss.

Here are a few responses from various different individuals to this quote from this weekend’s General Conference:

• “It’s not as if you’re going to hear that and say “Right. I guess I don’t have doubts.” It seems more likely that people will hear that and say “Right. I guess I don’t have faith.”"
• “Plenty of seemingly incompatible thoughts/emotions coexist in the same mind at the same time without dispelling each other. It’s like saying “being faithful in marriage means never having desires for another woman/man” when the truth is faithfulness in marriage is about staying committed in spite of those desires.”
• “If Joseph Smith hadn’t doubted a whole bunch of things would we even have the LDS Church?”
• “One popular ZEN proverb reads, “Where there is great doubt, there will be great awakening; small doubt, small awakening; no doubt, no awakening.” It’s refreshing and uplifting to think about doubt as a positive catalyst for reflection and self-discovery, rather than a weakness to be risen above.”
• “If faith means enough hope to act even though one is not absolutely certain of the result, the opposite is enough despair or discouragement that we become paralyzed from acting. If one calls that despair or discouragement “doubt”, then I agree that doubt is the opposite of faith.  However, I personally see doubt as uncertainty, recognizing the possibility that what we hope for or believe is not true. For me, that is an inherent component of faith. Without that uncertainty or doubt, I do not think faith exists (because it would be knowledge or certainty).”
• “I’ve heard plenty of Church leaders admit to feeling doubts, and Joseph Smith seemed full of them. But quotes like this do set-up a certain mindset among the “faithful” that they should never entertain doubt, or else. The sad thing here is that this state-of-mind is temporary at best, and can often lead to complete loss of faith. But some GC talks seem more designed to rally than educate, which explains stuff like this.”
• “What was most striking about Mother Theresa was the juxtaposition of faith and doubt in her life. She had such faith, yet such doubt at the same time. I think it’s totally bogus to pit faith and doubt against each other as opposites. They aren’t competitors, they’re collaborators – they encourage each other. Faith exists because of doubt, and doubt because of faith. IMO, faith without doubt is smug arrogance. Show me someone who has no doubt, and I’ll show you someone who has no faith.”
• “Pope Benedict referred to Mother Thesesa’s doubts as the “silence of God,” and said that all true believers must learn to deal with the silence of God which inevitably come to all of us.”
• “Elder Holland said Jesus needed to experience something like doubt. Joseph Smith certainly did–see the first verses of section 121. And the book of Job is full of doubts and anguish (although, in the condensed version we skip from Job’s refusal to condemn God and go straight to the restoration of his prior blessing, and we overlook his struggles and anguish and anger expressed in the intervening chapters).”
• “If faith is a spiritual gift, then only some will receive it. I’m paraphrasing, but the scripture says some will have the give of faith and some will have the gift to believe those with faith and some will have other gifts. And yet then we are told it is a sin if we don’t have this gift?”
• “When church leaders are asking for us to have faith in God, they really mean have faith in what they tell you about God and what the scriptures say about God, but neither are God, they are just ideas.”

What do you think?  Does doubt drive out faith?  Or is faith without doubt smug arrogance?  Is doubt an essential part of faith development?  Is some doubt bad (paralyzing doubt) and some good (energizing doubt)?  Is doubt the same as “the silence of God” that Mother Theresa, Joseph Smith, Jesus, and Job all experienced?  Do you view doubt as a complement to faith or the enemy of faith?  Is there a “war on doubt” in the church?

Discuss.

I’m sure there are several writers on site who are busily searching through intellectual copyright law as I speak, so I must speak quickly before I get shut down (not to mention before the Bearded, Blue-Shirt-Wearing African Americans and Women who love Pr0n nab me for libel).

The other day, John C at BCC made another Monday Morning Theological Poll and asked: “True or False: If someone wishes to leave the church, it is because they have some grave, unconfessed sin?”

…I don’t know how representative BCC is of Mormondom as a whole, but if we can but abuse statistics for this one time, we can come to the conclusion that, overwhelmingly, Mormons do not believe such a claim. Just looking at the stats, more Mormons percentage-wise say “no” to such a claim than Facebookers hate the new Facebook design (drat, that’s a lie: Facebook’s current 93% hate [with millions of votes] tops the 91% of BCCers that say false. But if Obama’s 53% of the popular vote can be a landslide and Prop 8′s 52% can just be a “narrow victory,” then I’m game for anything statistic-wise.) I’ll add Obama supporters to the list of people coming after me.

Anyway, this post isn’t about that. That has nothing to do with B, B-S-W A-As (in particular, didn’t Obama say he can’t even grow a good beard?). or those W-w-l-P. In fact, what piqued my attention was a comment further down the page:

Actually, it has been conclusively shown that people who leave the Church are those who believe that people leave the Church because they have some grave, unconfessed sin.

I was thinking about this…and I realized I had to approach it delicately.

I guess I’m not going to speak so much about depression so much, because while I speak in jest, I don’t mean to jest about people who suffer from this condition. But I know as well that there are those who seem to attract this kind of…I dunno…sour attitude about things. Oh, the Church can’t do this right. And the church can’t do that right. How dare the Church support this but say little about that?

I’m sure that all of these things are of the utmost importance and people have to stick by their principles, but could it be that sometimes, people just take things too seriously? I mean, in the end, people need to decide if they will take something or if they will not, and if they will not, they need to start the process of trying to move past and move away.

I mean, if you’re going to be bearded and blue-shirt-wearing, for example, recognize that you’ll face some flak. If that’s too much for you, say bye (because really, if you don’t want, you don’t have to take it), but be secure in your decision. But don’t think you’ll be off the hook. You will face stigma no matter where you go or what you do, so you might as well pick something that you are comfortable with and then go forward with that.

No finale can truly live up to the expectations of its fans.  Finales can be maudlin (Cheers), sentimental (M*A*S*H), or downright hostile to the loyal fans (Seinfeld).  Some finales wrap everything up in a neat bow (Bob Newhart Show), while others leave things enigmatic and open (Veronica Mars, although clearly not their fault–they got canceled).

The updated show, which just ended after 4 very full seasons this week, brought us a bleak picture of humanity, characters who discovered they were Cylons when they thought they were humans, and humans who didn’t know what they were.  It had moments of brilliance, flashes of insight, and heart-breaking humanity at times.  That brings us to the finale.  IMO, the finale, while not a total disaster, had some serious flaws:

• Navel-gazing flashbacks that didn’t move the ball forward. There are flashbacks for several of the main characters.  None of those flashbacks is useful at either new character development (it’s the finale anyway) or at moving the ball forward on the story.  Little of importance is revealed.  The flashbacks seem self-indulgent:
  • Ellen & Tigh.  They like to party, and they’re in love.  We know that.
  • Adama.  He’s full of moxy, hates authority (except his own) and is capable of getting drunk enough that he can vomit on himself without trying to clean it up.  Not big news.
  • Roslin.  Her close family was killed in an auto accident, and she slept with someone much younger than her which is why she decided to get back into politics.  So what?
  • Lee & Kara. They had yet another near-miss, although this one was certainly the most sordid of all and doesn’t reflect well on either of them.  It seems a bit out of character for both, in retrospect:  for Lee because he was so passive for the first few seasons (why he lost Kara to Anders), and for Kara because she was so in love with Zach that she barely knew Lee existed.  Continuity, people!
• Unanswered questions. There are a lot of very big, very important questions left open:
  • Who is Daniel? There’s one Cylon model missing who was boxed by a jealous Cavill, his brother Daniel.  Presumably, we’ve seen one of the Daniel models before, wandering around among the humans (otherwise, what a wasted opportunity!)  Many fans have suggested that Kara Thrace’s missing piano-playing father was Daniel (making Kara the first real half-human/half-Cylon; suck on that, Hera), but Ron Moore has denied that suggestion (hate fans much?) without offering any better one.
  • What is Kara? At the end of the series, she’s been killed, come back to life somehow, cremated herself, and then announced cryptically that she’s done with her journey; then, mid-conversation with Lee, she just disappears.  I’ll be honest, there are a lot of things they could have done with this.  The scene is reminiscent of Greek mythology, how the immortal Gods and Goddesses appear among mortals and then are suddenly gone.  But this again is just left hanging.  Answers are not likely forthcoming as Katee Sackhoff has not signed on for the fall’s BSG movie The Plan (which is a flashback anyway).  It just seems polite for someone to ‘fess up to who resurrected her, how, why, and what that makes her now.
  • What are Head Six and Head Baltar? Regardless of all that, the hallucinations/angels known to fans as Head Six and Head Baltar are walking through a modern-day version of Times Square at the end musing on how humanity always seems to end up at the same place regardless of the location:  Kobol, Caprica, the original Earth, and now the second Earth.  But no one is there hallucinating them.  What the heck are they?  Is there some mythology that is meant to explain who or what they are?  Hello?
• Gaping continuity problem OR wasted opportunity.  This is my biggest issue with the series finale.  The crew arrives at a pre-historic earth, roughly 150,000 years before an earth that is similar to our present day earth.  The crew decides that they will populate this planet, splitting up to the various land masses, live quietly and teach language to the indigenous people (alien seeding theory, to those evolutionists out there).  There are a few problems with that notion, one literary, one scientific:
  • Scientific Issue:  Humans didn’t develop written language until about 10,000 years ago, yet these guys were going to be teaching language to pre-historic humans 140,000 years before that?  I don’t think so.  That would have to move human evolution along much faster, too.  The development of language is one of the most pivotal moments in human development.
  • Literary Issue:  The characters populating earth have names that are significant to our world history, yet they have been placed there at the wrong time to have been the basis for those cultural events:
    • Galen is going to live alone in a cold island off the biggest land mass.  Perhaps his name is intended to be the basis for the Gaelic language?  Nope, sorry–you’re off by over 140,000 years.
    • There are many characters with names associated with Greece through geography (Thrace = Thracia) or through mythology (Apollo, Athena, Hera, the names of the 12 colonies).  But, that can’t be right.  They’re off by about 142,000 years!
    • Adama could be the basis for mythology about Adam, but again, unlikely given the lapse of 140,000 years between their landing date and written human history.
    • There are many religious concepts associated with the show that could have been woven into earth’s mythology, but now can’t be due to the 140,000 year gap between their landing and recorded history.  Some of the themes:  resurrection, a Sun God, Icarus, the nature of angels, the will of God (or the gods), the nature of prophets, etc.  So instead, we have to believe that earth developed all of those independently at a later point in earth’s development, despite the coincidence.

So, for those of you who are fans (and if you’re not, you were warned to skip this post), what did you think of the Series Finale?  Better than you expected?  A disappointment?  Somewhere in between?  Discuss.

I suppose alliances are a necessary evil if you want to get anything done.  Companies do it.  Countries do it.  Even individual people do it.  What are the dangers of these “strange bedfellows”?

• Association.  Having our views misunderstood or misconstrued by outsiders or even by our own members.  For example, do some members begin to think that we have a different or stronger stance on issues because our associates do?  Also, when an “ally” does something really stupid (many have), does that taint us by association?
• Motivation.  While our alliances might coincide, often our motives are quite different below the surface from those of our allies.  When those motives differ, our actions are likely to differ as well as our desired outcomes.  Isn’t it also likely that we might be used to achieve ends with which we disagree?
• Conflict of Interest.  Once an alliance is formed, it’s much harder to separate our interests where they naturally diverge.  There may be pressure by virtue of the relationship to allow our allies greater latitude for things we might otherwise have taken a stance against.

Clearly, there are some groups we have been leery to court as allies because the risk was too high:  the FLDS, staunch pro-life groups, the ERA (not sure that was really under consideration, but just wanted to see if you were paying attention), and the religious right.  But consider for a moment some of the alliances church members have formed.  Some of these are alliances the organization has sought out, and others are more “grass roots” alliances that members have formed, thinking their interests coincide:

• Prop 8 Allies. Many of these are the same guys who:
  • think we are a cult
  • want to “pray the gay away”
  • make some very hateful and inaccurate remarks about homosexuals
  • supported Huckabee to knock Romney out of the race for POTUS because Romney believed Satan and Jesus were brothers and apparently in each others’ fave five.  (Hey, I guess by that logic we also think Huck and Satan are brothers!)
• Focus on the Family.  This is James Dobson’s ministry to protect families.  But they ALSO support school sponsored prayer, corporal punishment, abortion intervention, and intelligent design.  Additionally, they are far more politically involved in their causes than we are, and many of their causes are ones on which we have no clear stance or don’t go as far as they do (see the aforementioned items:  we don’t have a stance on school sponsored prayer, we caution against actions like corporal punishment at least within the family, our abortion stance is softer than theirs, and we teach evolution at BYU).
• Feature Films for Family.  Enterprises like this take a nice idea (clean entertainment that is family friendly) as a starting point.  Often they lack the talent and resources to make it high quality or a good value.
• Clean Flicks.  This UT-based company that catered to the LDS crowd by removing objectionable movie content was more of a benevolently-viewed off-shoot, but they were certainly viewed as associated with Mormons.  Hollywood didn’t like being edited by do-gooders and sued them over it (frankly these people don’t like to be edited by anyone!  have you ever seen a Director’s Cut?); Clean Flicks discontinued.  Then the owner was implicated in an unsavory pornography scam in Utah County.  In our lovely deseret.
• Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, this alliance only applies to those Mormons who are also politically conservative Americans, but since that seems to be a very vocal majority, this association is relevant.  Limbaugh emcompasses basic political characteristics:  fat, loud hypocrisy.  Frankly, he’s not doing Republicans any favors either.  Maybe if the NRA cuts him from their Christmas card list, he’ll finally know he’s gone too far.
• Stockpiling WingNuts. There’s clearly a distinction between the reasonable counsel to be prepared for emergencies and layoffs by keeping a supply of food and money on hand and the wingnuts who are building a bunker in the backyard with a stockpile of weapons in case they have to kill and eat their neighbors.  There are some supposedly “like-minded” individuals out there wearing tin foil hats and selling 72 hour emergency kits to church members.
• “Obamanation” Armageddon Theorists. This is an unpleasant blend of political conservativism (fine in its own right) and Rapture-mongering (the idea that we can bring the second coming on despite the statements that say “no man knows the hour.”)  Can’t we disagree politically without resorting to religious fear-mongering?

So, what other strange bedfellows are out there?  How do we avoid “the appearance of evil” by associating with those who share a passing interest, but in reality have aims that are far different from our own?  Is this an inevitable problem, or are there ways to more clearly distance ourselves from allies whose agendas differ or even contradict ours on many points?

Discuss.

Here are several reasons why Mormon Doctrine is NOT Mormon Doctrine:

Despite the many reasons why the book is not an official declaration of Church doctrine, it still gets cited and quoted in General Conference and Church talks, lessons and articles. Thus, while the book does not represent the official statement of Church beliefs, such actions of using it in official Church meetings by General Authorities and members gives the book undeserved legitimacy and authority.

It is no wonder that opponents of the LDS Church attack the Church by citing from Mormon Doctrine. We deny the near canonical status of the book, yet, the book sales and use of it in Church tells the critics of the Church (and membership) otherwise.

So, what do you think?  Does the book do more good than harm?  Do average members understand that it is not canonical?  Why was Bruce McConkie protected from the consequences of writing a speculative book with a presumptuous title when others who have written speculative Mormon books have been excommunicated?  Discuss.

Interestingly enough, Tom Hanks was briefly identified as a Mormon (although he was not baptized) when his stepmother Winifred joined the church.  However, his father Amos was not interested in the Mormon church, and according to an unauthorized biography, Tom saw this as one reason they split up.  Tom stated later that he was no longer a Mormon, and he also believed his ex-stepmother had left Mormonism.  Tom made his way through several different religions over time as you can see here.

Speaking of his involvement in the show Big Love, Hanks said (with my parenthetical comments inserted):

The truth is this takes place in Utah (the truth is that it’s a fictional show), the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church (the truth is these are fictional characters based loosely on some bizarre offshoots; but KUDOS for the “bizarre offshoot” remark), and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen (why do I picture someone making air quotes when they say “happen”?).  There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them.  I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible (is he now talking about the Prop 8 maps that identified donors, essentially putting targets on their backs for gay activists?) and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards (I’m not even sure this sentence went forward instead of backwards). So lets have faith in not only the American (not Mormons who are UNAmerican for voting for Prop 8), but Californian constitutional process (so, have faith in Americans, but if they vote wrong, have faith in the constitutional process to correct that).

Then, Tom did a fairly nice reversal of his statement:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as “un-American.” I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.  But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are “un-American” creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement.  No one should use “un- American” lightly or in haste.  I did.  I should not have. (I really like the terseness and directness of the last few statements.  Apologizers, watch and learn).

Obviously, the reversal of his statements (which was doubtless prompted by those who have a financial stake in his popularity) doesn’t necessarily mean he’s ready for a group hug.  So, what are Tom Hanks’ true feelings about Mormons?  Here’s a guess:

• He’s an activist for gay rights.  Like most of Hollywood, he’s an SSM activist and considers those not ready for SSM to be discriminatory.  It’s hard to blame him for his sheltered Hollywood existence, though.  When you spend most of your time around like-minded people, you develop group-think.  I’m sure we can all relate on some level.  In summary:  his feelings are pro-SSM, not anti-Mormon.
• He’s spiritual, not religious.  He saw his ex-stepmother as flaky (looking at his own religious history I say “physician, heal thyself”) and therefore attracted to Mormonism as a phase; he probably doesn’t take it very seriously as a religion (see:  Hollywood).
• He’s an artist.  We see Hollywood as a money machine; they see themselves as creative artists, holding a mirror up to the human experience.  Tom Hanks strives to make characters (even the polygamous Hendricksons) understandable, human, accurate, and relatable.  Showing the Mormon temple ceremony is not being done as payback (although he does resent Prop 8); it’s being done for accuracy and to render Barb Hendrickson more human.  And he is just an EP, not a writer for the show (that would be Dustin Lance Black, the gay ex-Mormon who gave the impassioned speech at the Oscars).

So, that’s my view.  I’m inclined to cut Hanks some slack.  Plus, I somewhat think there’s no such thing as bad press (even all that bad press out there).  Not many Mormons watch Big Love, but many do watch Tom Hanks.  I think his apology was adequate, and I don’t consider his work mean-spirited (although I hated the mullet he sported in DaVinci Code).  It’s a low bar, but high enough for me.  Discuss.

To the right is a statue of the First Vision.  Actually, I kind of like this one, although I’m not a fan of the medium the artist used.

This one is from Jesus’ little-known Sermon in Stepford.  Much discussion has been had elsewhere about the problematic placement of the rose and whether this is supposed to be a picture of Jesus with his polygamous wives.  The artist has apparently denied that interpretation, but without an explanation of the phallic rose.

A Moroni tree-topper.  Not exactly art, but kitschy.  It’s almost so bad that it’s good in a Nebraska salt and pepper shaker way.

This Nativity inspired painting is both beautiful and thought-provoking.

This toothy-grinned Jesus is not nearly as good as its unsmiling counterpart.  This picture doesn’t make Jesus look very smart, IMO.  Like he didn’t get the joke, but he’s laughing anyway.

This just looks like it belongs in a mini golf course to me.  Art?  Really?  Was this before wide-spread adoption of the Word of Wisdom?  Just plain weird.

This painting of the sacred grove always looks like it was inspired by the Redwood Forest rather than anything actually growing in upstate NY.  Accuracy aside, though, it’s nice enough with the effect of the light filtering through the trees.

This tattooed man (those are prophets’ portraits on his back) spells one word to me:  “devotion.”  I’d like to see him add one of E. Oaks since the “no tattoos” pronouncement.

I like this more Art Deco version of Moroni, although that trumpet looks a little bit improbable, like a straightened ear horn or gramophone.  Or a yard-long beer.

I have also noticed that many other religions seem to like our Jesus pictures, particularly these two:

 and

So, what do you think?  What Mormon artists do you like and which ones do you not like?  Why is there so much bad taste in Mormon art (kitschy or weird stuff) or is this just true of all religious art?  Is it because that’s what sells or is that blaming the victims?  Or does religious feeling inspire otherwise unskilled and inartistic people to create “art”?

Do you disagree with any of the above artistic assessments (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all)?

Discuss.

• Intercessory prayer for the sick only has a health benefit when the sick person knows about it.    Does prayer for the sick make them healthy?  If so, how does it work?  It is simply placebo effect (sounds a lot like being healed according to your faith) or is there more to it?
• Prayer and meditation actually change the brain’s development; those who frequently pray have much more developed frontal lobes.  Maybe we could replace TR questions with a simple brain scan.  I kid.
• Those who do not attend church have twice the risk of dying in the next 8 years as those who attend church weekly.  Risk levels vary based on church attendance.  (1992, Univ. of TX study).  Conclusion:  Go to church or die.
• Those who attend church live 2-3 years longer than those who do not.  (Univ. of Pittsburgh Medical Center).

So, why all these health benefits?

• Community centers.  Social benefits of church attendance or being in an extended family of believers.  Some congregations deliberately work together to promote health or weight loss.
• Friendships.  Individual relationships can provide the extra support needed to relieve stress, to feel understood, and to care for each other when ill.
• Physical sensations associated with houses of worship.  As a hospital can contribute to wellness (or illness if dirty or depressing), so can houses of worship transport one’s body by creating feelings of comfort and health.
• Belief that the body is a temple.  When you believe that your body is sacred or divine, you are not only more likely to take care of it, but you create health through your emotional state.
• Prayer’s impact on the brain.  Prayer and meditation can literally transport the body and create health.

So, while every church has health benefits, what are the unique components to Mormonism that lead to a healthier life?

• Focus on Families. Healthy family relationships that are supportive and free from abuse are probably the number one prolonger of life.
• Visiting/home teaching.  The sense that someone knows and cares that you exist is a powerful force for those who might otherwise succumb to despair or feel they are alone in illness.  Friendship is one of the great health benefits of religion.  Plus, you may get a rush of endorphins when your VTers just can’t get to you in the month, feeling like you have extra time in your schedule.
• Fasting.  Many religions and spiritual disciplines prize fasting for its health benefits in clearing the body of toxins.  Mormon fasting also has the benefit of altruism; those fasting feel good about donating the cost of the skipped meals to the poor.
• Lay clergy & participation expectations.  The more engaged you are in your religion, the more likely you are to reap health benefits from fellowship, service, and a sense of purpose or meaning.
• Prayer.  Prayer can literally help your body heal in transcending the temporal concerns that might plague you.  Deepest prayer accesses parts of the brain not normally used.
• Priesthood blessings.  Rituals associated with healing allow faith to release the benefits to the body, much like a placebo effect.  The better the ritual, the more convincing environment for faith (think suspension of disbelief).
• Temple attendance.  Boring?  Mystical?  Transcendent?  If for no other reason, the temple provides a health benefit through silent meditation (anything above a stage whisper is gauche) and complete isolation from outside distractions such as blackberries and whining kids.
• Tithing & church welfare. Especially in trying economic times, it’s a comfort to know that there is a fallback with church welfare for those full tithe payers.
• Word of Wisdom.  If for no other reason than eschewing alcohol and tobacco, the WoW would have health benefits for those who might otherwise O.D. on harmful substances.  In times of stress or illness, though, eliminating coffee and tea and eating meat sparingly can have additional health benefits.

What are the components to Mormonism that could lead to reduced health?  Are any of these unique to Mormonism?

• Stress.  This varies from person to person, but there seems to be a correlation between high levels of belief, perfectionism (expecations of perfection from oneself and others), and responsibility (aka stewardship).  If we could just get rid of that pesky middle one, all would be well.  IOW, “be ye therefore perfect” could land you six feet under.
• Two words:  Funeral potatoes.  It’s hard to imagine a more cholesterol laden food.  Oh, wait.  Honey butter.  Possibly fry sauce.  So-called Mormon foods are neither good for the body, nor for the belly.  If you want to develop a hefty pair of Relief Society arms, go to a ward potluck.
• Repression.  Repressing one’s feelings can lead to depression, ulcers, and can weaken the immune system and make one more prone to all kinds of illness.  Those who feel they have to put on a mask to fit in to Mormon culture are going to be less healthy, first emotionally, then physically.  There has to be room in the culture for a diverse array of people to feel comfortable being their authentic selves.  We literally kill people when we don’t accept them for who they are.  And last I checked, “Thou shalt not kill” was still one of the top ten no-nos.

So, is Mormonism more or less healthy than other faiths or about the same?  Are there times when someone should leave the church for health reasons?  How can we make church healthier for all?  Discuss.

If you want to build a ship, don’t herd people together to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea.

Today’s post is from guest poster Melodrama.  As I thought about the ramifications of the ideas in different realms of my life and particularly in my worship, I was struck, because the point of the quote actually seems so opposite of my experience with the corporate nature of the church. Most lessons or talks focus on checklists or commandments or assignments: the ABC’s of revelation, the 4 steps to repentance, lists on chalkboards of how to keep x commandment better.

Is it because they are afraid that if they teach us the longing for what Joseph Smith claimed to have had, a very personal relationship with God, that they can’t deliver? Or are the checklists and assignments necessary for the institution of the church to survive and thrive?

I thought of K, a little girl I taught in Primary. At her baptism, her excitement got the best of her as she literally ran from the chapel to the font when it was her turn. Or a woman I watched baptized in the inner-city ward I used to attend. She could not contain her joy as she was raised out of the water, and it was manifest in a boisterous shriek of happiness. Her active participation in our church was short-lived, typical for the baptisms in that ward. I used to complain that the people the missionaries brought forth were not ready to fully commit to the church and its teachings, but who can deny the joy in her heart that day and who can tell the power it had in her life?

Others express their joy in a more subdued and quiet way, but these examples of those whose emotions were oblivious to procedure and protocol made me reminisce of my own baptism. While I don’t remember the details, and I’m certain I was not a runner or a screamer, I do not recall being assigned to baptism. I like to think I am pretty typical, that I chose baptism, not because I was commanded to do so, but because even as a little girl, I sensed the love of God and had a longing for the divine.

And nearly 30 years later, as I sat in church one Sunday in my ward in December, I was notified we would unexpectedly end one hour early due to problems with the facilities. When the bishop came in to announce it, one woman physically clapped at her excitement. As everyone went to find their children and leave, one man said, “I’ve never seen a happier bunch of Mormons”. It sort of begs the question, why build a boat if you have no desire to set sail to sea? If church is supposed to answer those longings for us, why are we happiest when we are freed from our obligation of attending? Must we have herdings and assignments because our longings are not enough to sustain us in the work of building a ship?

I wonder, are we efficiently building boats only to turn around and build another one and never recognize the endless immensity of the sea?

• Divine proof.  These are stories that provide evidence that the church is true or that God had a hand in someone’s life (e.g. answer to prayer or divine guidance).  They are designed to reinforce the value proposition of living the commandments.  Here are some examples:
  • Answers to prayer
  • “Promptings” to do or say something specific
  • Looking back on a situation and seeing the hand of God
  • Prophetic statements or policies that are “proven” later
• Persecution.  These are stories that illustrate that members of the church will be picked on by those outside the church.  They are designed to reinforce tribal behavior (if inwardly focused) or missionary work (if outwardly focused), depending on the plot.
  • Pioneer stories often fit this category (and some fit the first, too)
  • Prophets are usually cast out or killed
  • Stories that illustrate social evils (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, promiscuity, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.)
• Seek and Find.  These are stories about someone seeking for something and then finding it.  Several parables are like this.  The BOM experience, which is the foundational story of Mormonism, is one big “seek & find” story.  So is the First Vision, although what is being sought differs slightly from version to version.  The emphasis seems to be on the need for each person to seek out and find his/her own way spiritually.  Examples:
  • Testimonies
  • Answers to prayer
  • Conversion stories
  • Scripture experiences (finding answers or inspiration)

What other myths or stories are there that you hear at church?  What myths or stories do you hear repeated in the b’nacle?  Are they the same or different?

Are any of the myths more or less useful than others?

Can you hear these myths at church in the stories people choose to tell, the quotes they choose to share, or the way they talk about their lives?

What do our myths say about us?  Are these the same myths of all Christianity?  How are they the same or different?

Discuss.

I mean, sure, we’ve already heard from reliable sources that Mormons like professions, but what is the deal?

What Mormons Like often spins off aspects of note in Mormon culture in a lighthearted way, but the scary thing is that I usually understand where the guy is coming from — for the vast majority of his posts, when I read them, I think, “I can definitely see that.”

And so, as he notes that Dentistry seems to be the true calling of Mormons, I can’t help but agree. My home ward is a military ward, and generally, we can count on having four or five dentists moving in or moving out at any time of the year (and I guess that’s not even counting the permanent dentists and the dentists in the other ward in the area).

Really, I can only ask, what is the deal?

I guess it probably isn’t just the easy access to medicine. But it does seem spot on that the careers that seem to be popular in the church 1) have big bucks (or big buck potential, 2) a useful skill, and 3) some entrepreneurialism. I can understand that dentistry is a useful skill…but still. Really?

The source of power?

Could it be that LDS culture has such a premium on that standardized cleancut missionary look (complete with perfect smile) that makes dentistry seem more appealing? It seems kinda silly to conjecture on that alone.

I guess the question really should be to ask if this isn’t just my imagination. In your anecdotal evidence, do there seem to be a disproportionate number of dentists? What are other careers that seem to stick out in your mind? Are there any official statistics about popular jobs for church members?

If you are a dentist and LDS, can you say that the church had anything to do with it? Why dentistry? This isn’t necessarily 20 questions, but it certainly appears to be an odd social phenomenon.

Before you give your opinion, here are some more specific questions to consider about an actual government with Jesus at the helm:

1. What kind of government.
   • Will the earth be a theocracy (like Iran) or will there be separation of church and state like in the U.S. (except the deep South and Utah)?
   • Would Jesus be subject to elections?  What if He got voted out?
   • Will there still be dissenting opinions?  Different political parties?  What if someone disagrees with Jesus?  What would He do?  Go all “cleanse the temple” on the Senate?
   • Is Jesus a Democrat or Republican  (remember he hung out with both poor people and tax collectors)?  Will He cut through pork barrel spending with a double-edged sword of fire?  Is Jesus good with money (wasn’t He keeping His money in a live fish last time)?
2. Role of churches.
   • Will there be a “church” during the millenium?  Why would there be?  Isn’t the church like the babysitter while the Savior’s away?  Remember, there wasn’t a church per se when He was on the earth.  He created a movement.  The disciples created a church to keep the movement going and provide support to new followers.  At the least, He could reduce the three-hour block.
   • Will there be various churches then?  Will some be non-Christian?
   • Will there be a mass conversion to one faith or at least Christianity?  Will there be apostates after that?
3. Culture.
   • What kind of shows would be on TV?  Would everyone be self-censoring?  Would there be less taking of the name of God in vain?
   • Would WWJD shirts & caps be irrelevant or an even bigger seller now that we know the answer to the question?
4. Jesus as a Leader.  What kind of political leader would Jesus be?
   • A great communicator (if you have ears to hear anyway).
   • Your basic delegator.
   • He might host some amazing parties (His reputation as a wine-bibber), but none of the cool people will be invited (expect guys in tin foil hats and aging hookers based on His friends the first time around).
   • Would He do interviews with Larry King?  Stephen Colbert?

So, do you take this idea literally?  If so, what do you think it will be like?  Do you fall into the “it will be so different than things are now that we can’t fathom it” (because if so, I guess I would just say “people are people”)?  Discuss.

I know what you are thinking:  “You have a rant about baptism?”

Yes, I do.  One of my pet peeves is telling innocent little kids that they need to repent of their sins in order to get baptized.  You hear it with surprising frequency, like at almost every baptism service you attend, and at lots of Primary Sharing Times.  And take, for example, this line from the song “I Like to Look for Rainbows,” sung at every Primary-run baptism I have been to in the recent past:

I know when I am baptized, my wrongs are washed away, and I can be forgiven and improve myself each day

How did this get past correlation?  Did they not read the scriptures cited in D&C 29: 46-47 which tells us that little children are incapable of sin and are redeemed from the foundation of the world.  Moroni 8: 9-12 says that little children do not need repentance and are alive in Christ.

I would be hard-pressed to identify an LDS doctrine I like more than the redemption of little children.  It is beautiful and merciful, and intuitively true.  So, why do we find ourselves telling innocent little kids that they need to repent of their “sins” to get baptized?

I know that there are scriptures out there that say you have to repent in order to be baptized.  I know that there are scriptures that say that children have to be accountable and capable of repentance in order to get baptized.  But “capable of repentance” and “needing repentance” are two different things.

One of the most difficult scriptures on this topic for me is D&C 20:37, which says that candidates for baptism should “truly manifest by their works that they have received the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins.”  Oliver Cowdery tried to get this phrase removed from the Book of Commandments, but Joseph insisted that it remain in.  How does this qualification for baptism, which Joseph Smith felt was truly inspired, square with child baptism?

Don’t get me wrong.  I think we should teach our children about repentance and help them understand it.  I think they need to know what it is and how it works by the time they reach the “age of accountability.”  But to me, baptism for an 8-year old is different than for an adult.  It is about obedience.  It is about discipleship.  It is about entering the strait gate and joining the Lord’s church.  It is not about repenting and remitting sins.  What sins has an eight-year old committed?

But am I wrong here?  Am I misunderstanding something?

End of rant.