“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)

Why does it seem that many Mormons don’t seem to believe this, despite the church’s oft-quoted emphasis that the church is politically neutral?

On May 13, 1969, Elder Hugh B Brown of the First Presidency quoted John Gardner, former secretary of health, education, and welfare under Lyndon B. Johnson.  Gardner gave a very interesting definition of political extremism:

Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.[John Gardner, No Easy Victories (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 8, 9.]

The text of Brown’s speech can be found here.  Almost exactly one year prior to Brown’s speech referenced above, he delivered the Commencement Address at BYU in May 1968.  Most of you remember his now famous speech called “Profile of a Prophet.”  It’s a fantastic address as he outlines a legal argument to a Canadian judge on why Joseph Smith is a prophet.  I recently listened to the entire speech.

During the first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then he gave a few words about Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”  I’d like to quote his words of advice to the graduating students.  I’d like to highlight some things I find particularly interesting.

“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.

First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.

Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.

Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.

Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.

-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968

I posted a slightly different version of this post on my blog.  The first few people commented that the politicians of the 1960′s must have been “Men of Integrity”, but our current politicians are not.  Let’s look at the 60′s for a moment.  Lyndon B Johnson’s ratings were so low, that he chose not to run for re-election.   Robert F Kennedy was shot and killed just 1 week after Elder Brown’s address, joining his brother John who had been shot and killed just a few years prior.  Martin Luther King Jr had been killed just 7 weeks prior to this address (on April 4.)

John F Kennedy had a reputation as a bit of a womanizer.  In 1968, Americans were quite sour on the VietNam War.  The sexual revolution was in full swing, and the Women’s Liberation movement was well under way.  The Bay of Pigs was a disaster in Cuba, and we had just gone through the Cuban Missile Crisis.  People were building bomb shelters for fear of Nuclear War with the USSR.  The Cold War was as cold as it ever was.  Suffice it to say, this decade was a time of tumult.

In the 1968 election that Brown referred to, Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.

I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time.  I don’t understand why our country has become so partisan, and why we don’t try to work together more.  People are gravitating to the extremes of MoveOn.org, and the Tea Party.  Brown saw a similar time of rancorous partisanship in the 60′s, and quoted Gardner:

As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .

Politics can always bring out a lot of rants, and often both sides will have “grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others.”  I’m sure all of you have your pet political issues.  Can we avoid these antagonisms as we discuss the state of our country?

What say you?  Are you guilty of Elder Brown’s definition of political extremism?  Can you disagree with either President Bush or President Obama without questioning their integrity, just as Elder Brown did with Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon?  Do you demean the institutions of the Congress or the Supreme Court because you don’t agree with particular legislation or court rulings?

This recording forms part of the many testimonies that are available from Wilford Woodruff concerning “the Last Charge,” a council meeting in Nauvoo where the Twelve were given authority to “bear off the kingdom,” and interpreted by President Woodruff to be the foundation of the succession policy of the Church.  Holzapfel’s announcement was that on one of the three wax cylinders upon which the recording was made, the rest of the First Presidency consisting of George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith added their witnesses that they had heard Wilford Woodruff bear his testimony.  We thus have the early voice of another president of the Church, the only recording of Cannon, and the addition of “two or three witnesses” to respond to the succession question.

I guess you’d really have to be a Mormon history afficionado to consider this information a “bombshell.”  There were a select few in the audience who were moved by the revelation, but the majority took the news calmly.  Holzapfel, in contrast, could hardly restrain himself as he built up his presentation and delivered his revelation in the final moments.  He mentioned that he had difficulty waiting the few weeks before the symposium to tell anyone this exciting news.

Interestingly, a point was mentioned in passing which grabbed my attention far more than the recording.  Apparently Holzapfel and some other historians have recently collaborated on an article discussing for the first time the fact that Sidney Rigdon was not present in the morning meetings at the Nauvoo Temple on March 26, 1844, when the Last Charge was given.  This is stunningly important to Mormon history, because it implies that Rigdon was not given the same keys that the rest of the Twelve received at that time.  Not only did he lack the right to succession, but he may not have understood the pattern Joseph presented that day in the same way as the members of the Twelve who were present.

I’m enjoying the Symposium so far, and I’ll be back to summarize some more of the proceedings soon.

Articles of Faith of Mormon Culture

1. We believe in SUVs and minivans, as the form of transportation, and in knee length shorts, which are always nice, and in the multilevel marketing.

2. We believe that church ball players should be punished for their own fouls, and not for unsportsmanlike aggression.

3. We believe that through bread crumbs, cheese, creamy soups, and rice all casseroles can be saved through obedience to ward cookbooks and creativity in the mixing bowl.

4. We believe that the first layers and ingredients of the Dip are: first, beans; second, cheese; third, chopped tomatoes; fourth, the gift of sour cream; fifth, olives; sixth, salsa; seventh, guacamole, that is, if you have it.

5. We believe that a Mormon should have a distinguished or a cute name, that it is appropriate to name a child after a church leader or a historical figure including an ancestor, that alternative spellings and French prefixes only add to a name, and that when referring to the names of General Authorities, middle initials should be a part thereof.

6. We believe in the same wall decor that exists in many Mormon homes, namely, framed family proclamations, vinyl lettering, inspirational word signs, family photos, pictures of temples and Jesus, and so forth.

7. We believe in the gift of the re-gift, church books, crafts, family photos, baked goods, emergency supply kits, and so forth.

8. We believe in sparkling grape juice so long as it is nonalcoholic; we also believe in bringing root beer and sprite to ward parties.

9. We believe in all that we have scrapbooked, all that we will now scrapbook, and we believe that we will yet scrapbook many great and important things pertaining to our family, friends, pets, and vacations.

10. We believe in the literal mixing of ketchup and mayo and in the generous application of ranch dressing; that CBAs (church-based acronyms) will be used to describe YM/YW, PEC, the Y, NCMO, and CTR; that Mitt Romney will get Mormons to vote for him any time he runs; and, that the Mormons will enjoy reading Twilight and The Work and the Glory.

11. We claim the privilege of trying to identify common acquaintances with any visitor at church, and allow all other people at church the same privilege, and let them name drop the names of Famous and general authorities how, where, or what they may.

12. We believe in being subject to scoutmasters, pampered chef hostesses, and the writers of the U.S. News and World Report Rankings for professional schools, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining Glenn Beck.

13. We believe in being above average, good at crafts, optimistic, and being fifteen minutes late everywhere we go. Indeed, we may say that we follow BYU football. We believe rumors about famous people joining the church, we hope to meet the three Nephites, we have endured many pyramid schemes, and hope to be able to endure all pyramid schemes. If there is anything cheap, free, sold in bulk, or given away when somebody is moving, we seek after these things.

Feel free to add your own cultural articles of faith in the comments.

I consider all of these women my friends and so we started chatting. As we bemoaned the unfortunate decline of the “spare the rod, spoil the child” philosophy, we noticed the elders walking down the hall. One of the women commented on how cute they were, but followed up with how young they looked. We all kind of giggled, but it opened up a discussion on how your perspective changes on something that is essentially unchanging. For the most part, missionaries are 19-21 and that’s how its been for decades, but how those young men are viewed drastically changes over time.

When I was a young girl, having the missionaries over for dinner was a blast. They were the best playmates ever. They ate like they had two hollow legs and would just rough house(way before the more recent guidelines that prohibit such things)and act goofy until they had to go home and make curfew. Once you graduate from Primary into the Young Womens program these elders morph into demigod-like status. They are so cute and so funny and so cool and you just can’t wait until you can date and marry your own RM. Beehive, Mia Maid(you can date!), and then finally Laurel, when dating a returned missionary is often a reality. Now they are potential husbands so you are sizing them up as breeding stock and providers. This phase will last for a few months to a few years. Maybe you will go to BYU for your MRS degree, maybe you will meet your eternal companion at FHE in your singles ward. There are so many ways it can happen, but it usually ends with your standing in a receiving line and your closest friends and family eating those chalky pastel mints and drinking ice water out of a punch bowl. Then, if you have a real testimony, you give birth to your own little missionary nine months later. The perspective changes and your focus shifts to raising the next generation of missionaries.

My perspective now? Perspective is a funny thing. The girls from my Laurel class are now sending their sons on missions. One of those girls just welcomed her oldest son back from serving an honorable mission in Argentina. Technically, I am old enough to be the mother of a returned missionary, yet I shamelessly flirt with them via my blog. In my defense, Jake started it, but…

What seemingly unchanging things within the church changed for you, depending on your perspective?

The transcript of the conversation between Lawler and Smith, which occurred late in the game, was printed on the Los Angeles Times’ Web site:

Smith: “Look who’s in.”

Lawler: “Hamed Haddadi. Where’s he from?”

Smith: “He’s the first Iranian to play in the NBA.” (Smith pronounced Iranian as “Eye-ranian,” a pronunciation that offended the viewer who complained.)

Lawler: “There aren’t any Iranian players in the NBA,” repeating Smith’s mispronunciation.

Smith: “He’s the only one.”

Lawler: “He’s from Iran?”

Smith: “I guess so.”

Lawler: “That Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: “The real Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: “Wow. Haddadi that’s H-A-D-D-A-D-I.”

Smith: “You’re sure it’s not Borat’s older brother?”

Smith: “If they ever make a movie about Haddadi, I’m going to get Sacha Baron Cohen to play the part.”

Lawler: “Here’s Haddadi. Nice little back-door pass. I guess those Iranians can pass the ball.”

Smith: “Especially the post players.

Lawler: “I don’t know about their guards.”

Michael Smith is a former all-American 6′ 10″ forward from BYU.  He served a mission from 1984-1986.  He was a drafted in the First Round (13th overall) by the Boston Celtics, where he played 2 years.  He played 1 year for the LA Clippers before jumping into the broadcast booth.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think this conversation deserved more than a verbal warning.  Suspension?  Give me a break!

“Our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).

BYU is closing its Women’s Research Institute, and I, along with many others http://supportwri.blogspot.com/, am distressed by this decision. My distress comes, not only because of the consequences of this shortsighted move, but because it is emblematic of the overall problem in the church of romantic paternalism.

Forgive me a personal anecdote. There are many things that are sacred about LDS temples and not discussed outside their walls, however, the fact that they are staffed almost exclusively by surprisingly spritely octogenarians is not one of those details. As a newly married couple my husband and I went to the Salt Lake temple to do sealings.  When I got married I kept my surname and, for some reason it is only in Mormon contexts that this seems to particularly baffle people. This confusion almost always surfaces in American temples (since in many parts of the world, like all of Central and South America, it is social custom for the wife to keep her name). On this particular occasion one of the aforementioned elderly crew was having a hard time understanding why, though we were legally and lawfully wed, we had different surnames. He demanded that I give my reasons for such a decision, and not satisfied with the fact that it was my prerogative, he insisted that I was not respecting my husband. His final snide remark to me was, “well it will be nice when the light finally comes on for you.”

This angry brother was not alone in his contempt for independent women. I have seen many comments from people in the past few days that it is a shame that BYU is closing its Women’s Research Institute. I think that it is not only a shame, but also a sham. The official claims from the school are that the dissolution of the Institute will actually increase support of, funding for, and emphasis on women’s studies. This is emblematic of the doublespeak the BYU administration has perfected in response to concern over many issues. Less is more. Closing is just a way of beginning anew. We are shutting this program down because we find it so, so very important.

It is this same doublespeak that is used to simultaneously compliment and limit women in the church. As a Mormon woman I find it very uncomfortable to hear men talk about their wives in public settings from sacrament meeting to general conference. Traditional “feminine virtues” abound. Wives are described as “sweet,” “angelic,” “virtuous,” “charitable,” “compassionate,” “kind,” and, most importantly, “beautiful.” One Sunday we were asked to talk and I dared my husband to describe me as his “courageous,” “strong,” “intelligent” wife. I don’t want to be “cherished,” I want to be taken seriously.

There is a cohesive and powerful message to women running throughout the church. You have a (wonderful, glorious) place, stay put! This message runs throughout the history (ahem, polygamy & the ERA) and modern role models provided for women. You want to know why “Utah Women Lag Behind the Nation in Higher Education”  just watch General Conference any given session. All of the women who speak fit a very neat stereotype in their appearance, the subject matter of their talks and their delivery (which was described by my own father this way: “Hm, I don’t really know what it is about them, but NO MATTER what they are speaking about, their tone of voice seems to convey that they are talking about knitting.”).

This stereotype is also, of course, very pervasive in LDS culture. Last fall, as a first year law student studying in San Diego, I was invited to an event for all of the LDS law students in the area. There were approximately 30 students and their respective families in attendance. I was the only female law student. We took turns introducing ourselves in a circle after the meal while “the wives” played with children in an adjoining room. All of the men introduced themselves and said, “(insert female name) is over there with ‘the wives’.” When it came to us, everyone turned to my husband to introduce me. The experience was both surreal, and disconcerting. We both felt that the temporal context of that event might better have fit the 1970s, when my mother was attending law school, or 1870s for that matter.

This institutionalized approach of romantic paternalism in LDS culture needs to end. BYU, and the church in general need to take a leap into the 20^th Century (not to mention the 21^st). Women and men are equal in the sight of God. We are not more virtuous. We are not lovelier. We do not want to be held to a different standard, or be seen through a colored lens. We want our concerns, choices and academic pursuits to be taken seriously.

Back at the Salt Lake Temple in the sealing room that evening, in a moment of perhaps poor judgment, I replied to the obviously irritated temple worker, “that’s funny brother, I was about to say the very same thing.”

Since I am currently visiting Provo from out of town, I determined I would poke around to see if I could clarify this odd move on BYU’s part. Last night I attended a meeting of the campus group “Parity,” a club dedicated to equality between men and women within LDS doctrine, where they discussed the closing of the WRI and brainstormed ways to protest the action. The meeting simply added to the questions I already had.

It seems to me that there are reasons to move cautiously in protesting this change in status for women at BYU. Placing the Women’s Studies minor under the Sociology Department in the College of Family, Home, and Social Science (FHSS) might be just what is needed to build the program and give it more legitimacy than it currently has. Between 6 and 8 students per year minor in Women’s Studies (of a student body of approximately 35,000). There are five classes offered by the minor, along with courses from other departments which are required or suggested. All of these classes combined serve a total of about 2000 students, many of whom are taking the classes as requirements for Psychology, Sociology, Home and Family Living, or Food Science.

Co-presidents of Parity Ellen Decoo and Hwanhi Chung ran the meeting and expressed concerns strongly and articulately with the input and added direction of sociology major Sara Vranes. Present at the meeting were 78 students, not more than 5 older community members, and one male faculty member, who did not comment. The organizers called for caution in expressing concerns, coming from prior experience that “activism has to be done differently at BYU.” The most overtly feminist statement came from a male student, who commented that this was “one more example of the closed decision-making process at BYU by an exclusive board of white males.” He was quickly shut down by female voices throughout the room, who said, “we have to be realistic, we’re at BYU, we have to work with where we’re at.”

Although it is still unclear exactly who was involved in the decision to close WRI or how it was made, at least one woman was a member of the internal review board which initiated the process. Renata Forste, who will administer Women’s Studies beginning in January, gave a 45 minute interview to BYU student and protest organizer Sara Vranes during which she explained her plans to form an interdisciplinary committee in an attempt to bring together aspects of women’s research which will now be fragmented into different areas around the University. The students are concerned that budgets and programs will be cut or less accessible, and that professors who are already overstretched will be unable to accomplish a comparable program to that which was offered under the previous director, Bonnie Ballif-Spanvill. (Ballif-Spanvill’s PhD is in Educational Psychology and her research interests and publications have focused on gender issues, community development, nonviolence and conflict resolution. Forste’s PhD is in Sociology and her research interests and publications are in the areas of fertility, infant and child survival, breastfeeding, patterns of family formation, and fatherhood.) The members of Parity are concerned about the message that this symbolic action sends to students, faculty and the world about BYU’s attitude toward women. But most of all, they are feeling that their voices are not heard. Students were unable to secure interviews with school administrators to discuss the issue, and were told they “did not have a good enough reason” to merit interviews with John Tanner, David Magelby, or Cecil Samuelson. Some of the suggestions for protesting included a “Day of Silence” and a “Die-in,” which to me eloquently expressed their feelings of disempowerment. On the other hand, professors such as Clyde Robinson believe that the move is merely an efficient use of resources. “The university couldn’t justify having an independent institute for women’s studies,” he told me, “because women’s issues and gender studies are researched all over campus in many different departments.”

As I have researched the details of BYU’s reorganization of Women’s Studies, I have discovered a pattern. Many programs have recently been absorbed into broader areas of administration. For example, in 2005 the Smith Institute was dropped from BYU and relocated in the Church History Department, with various academic departments at BYU to continue research in church history topics. In August of 2009 the Health and Human Performance Department was discontinued and the departments and programs were realigned with other colleges including Fine Arts, Life Sciences, and Management. Under the administration of David Magelby, the Dean of FHSS,the Social Work major was discontinued in 2007 after a year-long study which suggested that undergraduates major in psychology or some related field and then complete a graduate degree in Social Work (which has been retained at BYU). A commenter on the Tribune article, sms35, articulates the concerns about Magelby’s approach:

The administration I think made a poor move on this. It has nothing to do with the LDS Church. The Dean does not like interdisciplinary programs bottom line. So while I think that there is a small component against women here, I do not believe that this is about the position of the women in the church per se.

The main problem is the Dean has no clue why it is so important. In my opinion he looks at the research that is done there and believes that it can be just as easily done by the people in their own departments. This is simply not true. The WRI was intrumental in organizing all of the efforts that we as individual researchers tried to accomplish. It would not have been as easy, or even possible without the WRI.

And that is just internal to BYU, outside of BYU it was fantastic to visit with other scholars and tell them you were a part of the WRI and BYU. It was a major factor in convincing other scholars that their perception of BYU as misogynistic were ill founded.

The WRi was always more than just the WomanStudies program and the research. It was also a very powerful message to the world that the LDS church took women seriously. It was never a huge organization, but it was growing and now, just as it was gathering the needed momentum this happened.

I am hoping that further information is forthcoming from BYU about how the change will “streamline and strengthen” Women’s Studies at the university. The public does not seem to understand how elimination of the WRI will strengthen research in Women’s Studies at BYU. The following are questions which are still unanswered:

• How will the addition of the Women’s Studies minor affect the Sociology Department?
• Is this setting up competition with the soc majors for funds?
• What will happen to the outside sources of funding which were solicited by the WRI?
• Would a Woman’s Studies program be better off in an actual department, with a woman department head, 7 full-time women faculty and 20 total faculty members; than in a research institute with funding for one and a half faculty positions?
• Does any other subject in the university have a separate institute for research, or is all research conducted under the umbrella of a department?
• What do Dr. Bonnie Baliff-Spanvill and Dr. Renata Forste (new chair of the Women Studies minor) think of this change?
• Isn’t it archaic to have a women’s studies program? Wouldn’t it be more PC to have a “gender studies” program, as Harvard has done?

There is no such thing as being normal

If Kaimi were in dire straits, he would prefer to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s

Apparently, marriage is hard work

Gayby Boomers? Silly name, interesting phenomenon

An explanation for Utah bankruptcies

I don’t think PETA would approve of this

Aren’t you glad we have calculaors?

Even Orson Scott Card realizes that Mormonism is a culture

Another reason to have more kids – Placenta Helper

The Bible & Book of Mormon don’t teach of THIS Holy Ghost

New Dehli: New gay rights in a deeply conservative country

Mormon Matters Motto is Exploring Mormon culture in a balanced way- so bare with me on this one (excuse the pun).

Recently we have read that Utah has the highest rate of pornography per capita compared to all other states here

There has been a great deal of speculation about this on the bloggernacle. Could it be that Mormons have this penned up curiosity busting to get out (excuse the pun again). The internet has made pornography just a click away, not like in the days when you had to ask a grocery clerk to pull a magazine out from underneath the counter.

I sometimes wonder with all the emphasis on staying away from drugs, alcohol, pornography if it is causing a worse problem by bringing it to the fore front constantly to members minds.

For example don’t think of Christi Brinkley in a red dress, don’t think about hot percolated coffee, or an ice-cold beer. Could it be the more we constantly emphasize something the more good people who have been living a life of restricted behaviour all their lives start to feel they can’t do that forever without blowing up, then they cave in or take it underground?

Another view is of inoculation especially when it comes to nakedness or nudity. Christian nudist views are “Sexual decadence such as pornography and pedophilia (paedophilia) is the direct result of a lack of exposure to nudity in childhood (particularly of the same approximate age). This is most likely to occur when combined with other factors such as extreme parental attitudes (e.g. body shame) and social isolation. They believe that those that are raised their entire lives within Christian naturism should not have any temptation to engage in such behaviour “such as pornography.

Their experience and testimony is that complete nakedness does not incite individuals to lustful thoughts, unlike for example, a revealing skimpy top that exposes a good deal of a woman’s cleavage or a very short mini-skirt. When naked, all body parts are seen as equal and non-sexualised. When clothed, the focus is on the private parts that are partly revealed and thus objectified and sexualised

Everything you wanted to ask LDS Naturists but were afraid to ask?

Are there really Mormon Nudists?

How many active nudists are also active Mormons?

Where do you find other LDS members that have an interest in naturism?

Are there LDS naturist groups, clubs or organized activities that we can participate in?

How can you be a nudist and respect your Temple garments at the same time?

I know there are no scriptures or specific doctrine against it, but public nudity is just plain wrong – isn’t it?

Isn’t public nudity illegal?

Why get together with other LDS members?

Are Christian Naturists an anomalous group – acting ignorantly or in open defiance to their own doctrine against nudity?

Does “Body-Acceptance” place the flesh above the Spirit?

The church has given very clear council on modesty of dress – wouldn’t nudism be in conflict with that admonition?

Doesn’t being naked in close-company provide an excessive opportunity for temptation?

Click here for the rest of the questions and answers

A Utah Valley, Utah man writes about his first naturist experience…here

LDS Skinny Dipper Home Page here

Please leave a brief reply (sorry couldn’t help it)

I share that background to explain why – at Sunstone West this past weekend – I took such a keen interest in a screening of the film “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.” Produced by Margaret Blair Young and Darius Gray, this movie goes through the history of black people in the Church and the evolution of the priesthood ban, which is largely “credited” to Brigham Young. Apparently, he evolved (or de-volved) in his views, as the movie had some interesting early quotes from him that were far more kind and tolerant towards blacks than some of his later whoppers. The historical context painted by the film shows an influx of Mormon converts from the southern states who brought their slaves to Utah. Henceforth, Young made the decision to make Utah into a slave-friendly territory. Another bit of historical context that I don’t remember being mentioned in the film is that the Democratic Party (then pro-slavery) was also more tolerant of plural marriage, which was likely another factor in the decision.

Fascinating as the history was, the movie was far more touching for me on a personal level. I was utterly floored by the powerful testimonies shared by the many black LDS members interviewed on camera. Many of these folks joined the Church while the ban still existed. One African-American sister shared the heartbreaking observation that the first time she was ever called a “nigger” was in the Salt Lake temple. Yet, she was far from angry. Like many others of all races, her life had been touched in a positive way by the Gospel. That many of these folks retained a love and loyalty to an organization that had rejected them for so long was amazing. The Church apparently did not sponsor this project, but it should buy every copy that it can and send it out to all four corners of the Earth. Seriously, who better to share the hopeful message of the Gospel than a group of people who consistently getting the short end of the stick.

Another interesting tidbit from the film was a story about Dr. Cecil “Chip” Murray, retired pastor of the First AME Church of Los Angeles (which was founded by a former slave of Mormon pioneers). Murray shares a story on camera that he was once invited to meet with then-President Hinckley at the Church Office Building. At that meeting, he says Hinckley apologized to him for the Church’s participation in the slavery issue and for its part in perpetuating prejudice against black people. How broad he meant that is arguable, but it certainly seems a long way from just three decades ago.

Ms. Young was there and hosted a lively discussion afterwards. She is working on getting the film distributed. Apparently, Howard University has agreed to show it on its PBS station. Hopefully, BYU does the same. Anyone interested should start bugging their local PBS station. And maybe some e-mails to Netflix to spark their interest wouldn’t hurt, either.

Basically, two thumbs up here. Despite the lousy economy, I would heartily recommend dipping into your wallet for $25 to buy the DVD (it can be found at

http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com

) And no, I’m not getting a cut. Thanks for listening.

I know the LDS church has no official views on evolution. I had someone ask me what I thought about it, and frankly, I haven’t given much thought about it. As I understand, there are people at BYU who believe in evolution, but I think they believe that evolution has limits, and don’t rule out that God created the world.

DPC commented on my blog,

I think that the problem with the evolution versus creationism argument is that a lot of people have no clue what they are talking about. I can’t tell you the number of times that I have seen mistakes made on the issue.

First of all, I think you have to differentiate between natural selection and evolution. They are not the same thing. Natural selection accounts for differences *within* species. For that discovery alone, Darwin becomes one of the greatest biologists of all time. No one can dispute that natural selection works. It explains the variations that we see in, say, dogs (think Chihuahua versus Great Dane; same species, huge variation).

Evolution on the other hand refers to the creation of *new* species. Darwin thought that natural selection may have been the mechanism whereby new species were created, but he never had any proof.

NeoDarwinism (which combines genetics with natural selection) postulates that genetic mutation combined with natural selection is the mechanism of evolution. But even that theory is not without problems, and many NeoDarwinists are loath to admit it, but the facts do not fit the theory particularly well. Every time someone says they have found a *missing link*, all it does it show another fully-formed species that is most definitely not a hybrid between and earlier species and a later species.

That being said, however, intelligent design is unscientific to my mind because it attempts to fill in the gaps in present theory of evolution without empirical justification. I think that you can’t reconcile the two. I think that scientists (e.g. Richard Dawkins-an advocate of evolution) should lose the overconfident swagger, admit that the current evolutionary theories are flawed and look to developing better theories that explain the apparent history of life on Earth, rather than try to paint their opponents as uneducated, superstitious buffoons.

So how do people reconcile evolution with creationism? What do you think about “intelligent design”?

I have lived here in the UK -London for 20 years now and when friends and family come over they sometimes comment on how green we are over here. They observe that most of us dry our clothes on the  line, drive much smaller cars, live in shoe box’s compared to the average size of an American home, walk to the shops, use long life low wattage low energy bulbs, changing windows over for double glazing, doubling up on insulation, are becoming more obsessive about recycling, drive low emission high mpg diesel cars, save left over food, food portions at restaurants smaller and public transport used far more often and readily available.

It amazes some of the Brits when they go to Utah to see how big the houses are especially in many cases for so few people who live in them.  Huge Ford Explorers, steak dinners that could feed a typical family of four.  When they go for the first time they come back thinking that it’s a land of excess.

I know there have been many of the changes I have described above happening in Utah and throughout the states but there is not quite the buzz or emphasis on it that I see here at least IMO!

I also have this theory that Mormons aren’t into green issues because

1. Many believe the second coming will be coming soon (God the creator of this earth will be able to clean up the planet in a second, our efforts are pointless.
2. We have to get our priorities right – family, missionary work, ward service, temple work.  Being green is definitely not a priority now
3. If it was important the prophet and apostles would be vigorously emphasizing it during conference.
4. It would be stressed and accentuated in the manuals
5. Gas guzzling cars – God created fossil fuels for our use.  He created this earth and when we run out God will inspire man to come up with an alternative fuel – he always provides for us.
6. God made fossil fuel for our use and we are fortunate to be Americans and live in a place where fuel is cheap and are blessed to be here.
7. We have proven ourselves in the pre-existence and in this life and we deserve the just rewards for being faithful members
8. An attitude of the more physical stuff I have cars, houses, boats shows were being blessed abundantly
9. We have been hearing a lot about fuel and energy—about their high cost and limited supply, our unsafe and unpredictable dependence on their suppliers, and the need for new and sustainable sources of energy. I leave the discussion of these complicated issues to leaders of government and industry. The fuel I want to discuss is spiritual fuel. Elder L. Tom Perry

Please discuss

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/23/why-arent-mormons-green/feed/ 56 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/11/abstinence-don%e2%80%99t-think-the-colour-red-don%e2%80%99t-think-the-colour-red/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/11/abstinence-don%e2%80%99t-think-the-colour-red-don%e2%80%99t-think-the-colour-red/#comments Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:01:14 +0000 James http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3737

“The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health” (Add Health),

1. Found that conservative and evangelical Christian teenagers are more sexually active than mainline Protestants, Jews, and even Mormons. On average, white evangelical Protestants begin having sex shortly after turning sixteen, which is sooner than most other groups.
2. Moreover, because of the widespread conservative and evangelical Christian belief that contraception is morally wrong, those teenagers were more likely than the other groups to become pregnant and contract sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
3. The surveys found that abstinence-only sex education is a total failure in stopping premarital sex, unwanted pregnancy, and STDs.
4. Bush has made it governmental policy in the United States and around the world to support the teaching of abstinence-only sex education. According to a 2001 estimate, two-and-a-half million young people have taken a pledge to remain celibate until marriage. This has been done under the auspices of movements such as “True Love Waits” and “The Silver Ring Thing.” Sometimes the pledges are made at “purity balls” where girls in ball gowns exchange rings with their fathers who vow to help them remain virgins until they marry. The surveys show that 82% of those who take such pledges end up having sex before marriage.
5. In addition, other surveys show that communities with high rates of pledging also have higher rates of pregnancy and STDs.
6. The problem with teenage marriages is that they lead to higher rates of divorce by conservative and evangelical Christians than among other Christians, Jews, and Mormons. Social scientists have noted that the states with the lowest age of marriage have the highest rates of divorce.
7. The problem with teenage marriages is that they lead to higher rates of divorce by conservative and evangelical Christians than among other Christians, Jews, and Mormons. Social scientists have noted that the states with the lowest age of marriage have the highest rates of divorce.
8. In 2004 the states with the lowest median age of marriage were the (then) red states of Arkansas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, and Idaho. The states with the highest age at marriage were New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.
9. The highest rates of divorce were in the red states of Arkansas, Idaho, Wyoming, West Virginia, and Nevada. The lowest rates of divorce were in the blue states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey.
10. The highest teen-pregnancy rates were in the red states of Mississippi, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada. The lowest were in Vermont, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Maine.
11. The surveys also showed that there is an important social class and educational aspect to adolescent sex. The more affluent, better-educated blue state teenagers are more cautious about having premarital sex than conservative and evangelical youths.
12. They are more likely to use contraception when having sex, and are less likely to get pregnant or STDs. Blue state young people are more likely to postpone marriage and children until after they reach emotional and financial maturity.
13. According to Mark Regnerus: “They (blue state teens) are interested in remaining free from the burden of teenage pregnancy and the sorrows and embarrassments of sexually transmitted diseases. They perceive a bright future for themselves, one with college, advanced degrees, a career, and a family.”

Thoughts and Questions

• The Church encourages education and the correlation between education and unwanted teenage pregnancy is positive
• Abstinence seems to be working fairly well in our church doesn’t it? – I honestly don’t know?
• What is our stand on contraception for teenagers that are going to be sexually active do we bury our head in the sand or is it ever discussed where they could go get help.
• Mormons don’t think contraception is morally wrong but would we encourage it if we knew abstinence was not going to happen?
• It appears in the States where religion is practised less but education is higher their seems to be higher abstinence and less teenage pregnancy and STD’s
• Has the church supported President Bush on abstinence only sex education? Will Obama be advocating abstinence education as well ?
  
• Do we formally encourage in our wards and stakes for our teenagers to pledge abstinence?
• If their is a correlation between the younger you get married the more likely you are to get a divorce, should it be encouraged that members wait longer before they tie the knot?
• If its true that the trend for BYU students are waiting a little longer to get married will this improve future divorce rates in the church?

Final thought and Question Do you think the more we talk about abstinence the worse the problem will get?

Don’t think the colour red! Don’t think the colour red! Don’t think the colour red!

What colour are you thinking?

Notes: Jack LeMoult

I wish to speak to those in a similar situation to me on my mission. This could be a youth seeking a first testimony, hoping to realize Moroni’s promise at their bedside. It could even be a prospective missionary hoping to do the same. It could be a life-long member seeking a renewal or reassurance of testimony.

I also want to speak to others struggling with testimony in a very different way. I believe some of us here, while believing we had a strongly rooted testimony in the restored gospel, have encountered things that may have challenged that testimony This could come in many forms: a realization of the imperfections of the prophets and apostles (past and present), or, on a related note, a run-in with some fragment of church history that just does not seem to sit well with you, or any number of other reasons that lead us to a point of confusion or frustration and a difficulty to believe as fervently as you once had.

Finally I wish to speak to the members of the church as a whole—assuming that all of us are continually seeking to define, defend, and renew our testimonies.

First, to those seeking a first testimony or renewal/confirmation of testimony: I wish to share a couple anecdotal stories that illustrate the dangerous expectation that we as individuals and as a church sometime have: the expectation to obtain our “witness” by some miraculous means. The first given by Orson Scott Card, a well-known LDS columnist.

Years ago, two young women we knew went on a temple trip. A temple official addressed the whole group, saying, “At this temple, we are keeping records of the spiritual experiences people have while doing temple work. When you’re through, we’ll give you paper so you can write down yours.”

The two girls had opposite responses. Girl A — let’s call her Agnes — felt a thrill of excitement. As she went down into the water and performed baptisms for the dead, she kept watching her own emotions — and in the process she found herself having stronger and stronger feelings, until she was convinced that she had had a great spiritual experience. So Agnes wrote it down with all the fervency of youth.

Girl B — Betsy — felt a great dread. What if she didn’t feel anything? What if she was the only one who had nothing to write about? And, indeed, while she felt good about taking part in the sacred ordinances, she had no great rush of feeling, no sign from God, no special connection with the other side.

Afterward, when everyone else (or so it seemed to her) was furiously writing, Betsy was miserably disappointed in herself for not measuring up.

Both of these girls were cheated out of the real temple experience by the false expectation — the demand, really — that they have and share a “spiritual experience.”

My second story comes from Elder Godoy as he recounts in General Conference an experience he had when visiting a ward in Brazil.

A few years ago, when I was serving as an Area Seventy in Brazil, my family and I were on vacation in the beautiful city of Florianópolis. On Sunday, as usual, we went to the closest church that we could find. My wife and I and our oldest daughter attended a Sunday School class where they were discussing our personal testimony of the gospel.

At some point in the lesson, the teacher asked the class members if they would share a powerful spiritual experience they had while developing their testimony of the Church. While some brothers and sisters were sharing their stories, I mentally reviewed my own experiences as a convert for something I could share with them, but I could not think of anything very remarkable in my process of gaining a testimony.

While I was thinking and listening to the others’ experiences, I realized that the teacher expected me to participate. She was listening to the other members, and she let me know that she was waiting for my great experience to be shared. After all, I was an Area Seventy, and I should have something impressive to share. Feeling that the time was passing and she was waiting for me, I tried harder to find something that would fit in this category of a powerful event, but I was not able to think of anything, to the disappointment of the teacher. For all I wanted to help, I could not meet her expectation.

Both of these stories focus on the point I wish to make here. Often times we as a church, and as a culture, focus on the importance of obtaining a witness to the truthfulness of the church. We often do so using such language as “a burning of the bosom” or other well-known Mormon phrases. We hear about people that experience a proverbial Pentecost at their bedside. We do this often times, to the exclusion of the stories that tend to be more common in the church: obtaining a witness through everyday experiences that nevertheless tell us in our mind and in our hearts that the gospel is true, godly, and good. To those struggling in faith because you have not had a “profound spiritual experience” rest assured that your testimony is no less valid than someone who has. You belong to a sometimes silent majority in the church to which General Authorities belong.

Elder Godoy of the Seventy concluded his story (the part that follows the foregoing excerpt) by saying that his testimony was not based on one irrefutable event either, but the sum total of many experiences that led him to believe that the seed was “GOOD.”

This word, “Good,” leads me to my next topic and audience: those who have been shaken in their testimony.

Some of you, like me, me have encountered things that have made you scratch your head and wonder a bit from time to time about the “truthfulness” of the gospel or the restored gospel.

Here I need to pause and question just what exactly we mean when we say “truth, or truthfulness.” We are often taught that the church is true or false, black or white, right or wrong, miraculous or a fraud. While I hold these statements in large part to be true, I also believe that this view of the gospel can be destructive for some. Viewing the gospel, the church, and its leaders in such a binary fashion can be disastrous. It leads many, including myself for a time, to believe that if the history of the gospel, the church, and its leaders is not blemish-free, then the logical conclusion is that it is altogether false. As a matter of fact, I know people who have left the church based on this premise.

I wish now to return to the word, “Good.” If you find yourself questioning the truth of the gospel because the church and its leaders do not have a perfect history, I encourage you to find strength and encouragement from this fact, not discouragement and a lack of faith. I believe that the reason why so many of us are so bothered by blemishes, is because we believe in the church so strongly, and we care so much about it… not that we care to little and wish to discard it. We would do well to remember a few things.

I can sum them up in an old adage: While the Catholics say the Pope is infallible, none of them believe it. And while the Mormons say the Prophet IS fallible, no one believes it. Do not be discouraged that we are lead and have been lead by imperfect men. While they are prophets and apostles, and I do not mean to minimize that fact, they are men—just as we are men. We are all walking through the lone and dreary world whether we want to believe it or not–you and me, and the prophets and apostles. We, just as the apostles and prophets, have been separated from our God and must seek daily to discern between truth and error, to hear His voice and discern between it, our own wills and desires, and those of the world. It was Paul, the great apostle himself, who said when addressing the Corinthians that he “saw through a glass darkly.” I think it presumptuous to assume anything different concerning our modern day apostles.

To conclude my thoughts on the word “GOOD,” that Alma and Elder Godoy use, I mean to say that GOOD means neither perfect nor infallible. If calling the church, an institution, by the adjective true, seems odd to you, especially because we recognize that we as individuals and as a church are a work in progress, imperfect and fallible, then you are not alone. What an odd usage of the word! To mean it’s like calling a ham sandwich true. It just doesn’t mean anything… unless of course we understand that when we say true, we mean Good, or “of God,” etc. And I do think that is what we mean when we say “the church is true.” So, to those of you struggling due to encountering history that challenges your testimony of the church or of its leaders, remember that above all else, you know that the church is GOOD, and that it as well as all of us are a work in progress.

Finally, I wish to address all of you as individuals that are just like me: seeking to define, defend, and renew my testimony. I believe all of you, whether you have experienced any of the aforementioned feelings or not, will one day experience some sort of discomfort as you explore the foundations of your former, current, and future faith. But discomfort is a good thing, it means we are thinking, feeling, evaluating, readjusting, redefining, in sum developing our understanding of God and Man. And so far as I have understood it correctly, that is the very meaning of life.

Wendy Ulrich, a PhD, focusing on religious and specifically Mormon psychology, describes our relationship with God in much the same terms as she would any long-term relationship, even a marriage.

The first of these stages is a honeymoon stage of blinding idealism, in which we delight in our new partner and are sure that the problems faced by other couples, other parents, other believers will not bother us. We are in love, full of hope, enthusiastic about our new relationship. We relish being loved and cherished, but even more we relish being someone who is easily loving and good. We are sure we have found a wonderful spouse, child, church, relationship with God, and we are also sure that this will last. We finally know how to be in a relationship, or how to get answers to prayers, or how to be part of a community. We are happy, sure that little problems that come up will be readily resolved. This stage lasts weeks and sometimes years, but it intermittently gives way to the second stage of committed relationships, the power struggle.

As the power struggle gradually takes over more and more of the relationship we begin to wrestle for control. We may try any of a number of old or new tactics to try to coerce, cajole, reason, manipulate, blackmail, convince, bribe, punish, or flatter our partner in the relationship into changing to give us what we want, whether what we want is a spouse who does the laundry or a God who explains Himself to our satisfaction. While some of these tactics may work with spouses or children or parents, they do not work with God. He invites us to change instead, and this is often very painful. We want the world back the way it was when we were innocent and full of hope and before we had discovered the snakes in the grass, but He evicts us from the garden and tells us to keep walking. Much of our behavior is about trying to get safe, and much of His is about trying to help us see that our safety lies in our submission to and trust in Him despite pain and struggle, not in our freedom from physical or emotional discomfort. We keep thinking that there are answers and solutions to all difficulties if we can just get someone else to see our point of view and give us what we know we need. And that someone else keeps holding out on us, keeping us guessing as to what to try next. We are sure that if we could just change them we could get things back to the honeymoon, not realizing that this is not only impossible, but unhelpful.

The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave. We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy. We are tired of fighting, but we can’t recoup our lost idealism. We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood. This period of withdrawal allows us to regain some independence, pursue other sources of satisfaction, and develop other talents and interests. If we are lucky we begin to work on ourselves–whom we can change–instead of working on our partner whom we cannot change. With the Church or with God, this means we begin to face that there are some questions we will not get answered, some differences that will not be worked out, some losses that will not be prevented. This is a risky stage, a stage when some people decide there is nothing to hold onto because they are no longer in love (stage 1) and no longer have hope for change (stage 2). But as we continue to work on ourselves, see reality more clearly, and resolve our own issues we have a chance of moving toward stage 4.

The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change. A deeper, more mature love begins to emerge, with fewer power struggles and less disengagement. We do not need to see all the answers, and we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship, not because we have decided to risk yet one more time that we will not get hurt only to have the rug pulled out yet one more time from under us, but because we have learned that hurt can be survived, that this is a risk worth taking, and that it does not mean we cannot be happy or that we are irrational suckers or that we are doomed to failure because we take another chance on trust or because we fail or are failed again. We see ourselves and our partner more realistically, and we do not run from either vision. We recognize that we can be hurt by being betrayed or we can be hurt by not trusting, but we don’t get the no-hurt choice because there isn’t one, at least not until we simply choose not to read betrayal into every ecclesiastical failure, or abandonment into every unanswered prayer.

I encourage all of you, to continue developing your relationship with God. To not avoid those moments of disillusionment and frustration that come with a growth in knowledge, but to confront them, embrace them, and learn from them. Learn more about yourself, and learn more about God. Indeed, realize that your testimony is a process.

To those struggling with doctrines or moments in church history, again anchor yourself in what you know to be good, and I do believe that you know the church is good, or else you would not be here today. Be comforted that God does not expect perfection of anyone, not you, nor the leaders of the church, but he does expect that we all move in the right direction and follow another admonition of Paul, to “cleave to that which is good.”

To those struggling to find a first testimony or those seeking to renew it through prayer, continue to pray. While God may not visit you with angels in the night, or even a physical feeling or burning, he will hear you and reveal truth to you in the way that he knows will benefit you most. For some that may be an angel, or a feeling, but certainly not for all.

My testimony, like yours, is very much so a work in progress. I even hesitate today to say that “I know” certain things. But I am comfortable in saying that my faith is that God is there, that Jesus Christ lived and died for us, and that God has revealed much for our good through ancient and modern day prophets, and that he will reveal much to us individually if we seek him out and say as Samuel did, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth.”… “Hear” of course being used figuratively.

I took a fairly typical course: I lived in the dorms (Deseret Towers) as a freshman, took two years off for a mission, came back, got serious about a Major program, and finished it up in 3 additional years (plus some spring and summer classes.)

Overall, I am very pleased with my BYU experience, and look upon it in overwhelmingly positive light.  If I may, I’d like to highlight a few of the outstanding parts.

• Freshman dorm life was a blast. Unfortunately, academics occasionally took a backseat that year, but the episodes I experienced with my dorm-mates are truly priceless, and they lead to the formation of some very lasting friendships.
• The mission-prep resources are unparalleled. For a kid getting ready to go on a mission, there are few better environments that the BYU freshman community.  Not only are there classes, firesides, etc, but the fact that you are in it with others who are also preparing leads to a great setting to get excited about and prepared for entering the MTC.
• Student employment opportunities. Upon my return from my mission, I was a resident assistant in the dorms.  That proved to be a fantastic experience, and I was very happy to be able to share my mission insights with those yet preparing.  After that job, I was employed by the International Studies center to be their webmaster.  That proved to be very valuable in helping me apply the material from my academic programs into a real world settings (computer programming, database administration, etc)  These employment opportunities were also gateways into meeting faculty, getting my name out, etc.
• Off-Campus Environment. While perhaps a bit more rough around the edges, there was a plenitude of events, locations, and other resources off-campus to enjoy a good time.  Some of the off-campus apartments were nicer than others, but on a weekend night, there were never shortages of pools/hot tubs, rec rooms, or sport courts to help have something to do.
• Mormon “Celebrities” on Campus. In addition to an Apostle visit to campus each semester, there were opportunities to run into semi-recognizable names on Campus.  I more than once ran into Lloyd Newel (think Music and the Spoken Word,) and even met Dan C. Peterson in the back of a lecture hall, and was able to have a nice 20 minute chat with him.  My New Testament class teacher was Stephen E. Robinson (“Believing Christ”) who I greatly admire.
• Robust Academic Programs. Most of my course work was at the Marriott School of Management, which consistently receives high marks nationally.  I was often overwhelmed by the homework and exams, but I never felt cheated or short changed when it came to the quality of the business school’s academics.
• Affordability. When compared to other university programs nationally, BYU rates are a huge bargain.  Thank tithing subsidies for that.
• A Wholesome Environment. Don’t be fooled, you can find pretty much anything at BYU.  Yes that may shock you, but its true.  However, for those seeking a wholesome and straight-laced lifestyle, BYU is certainly a haven for that.  While everyone does develop their own sense and path of spirituality, BYU does provide a sustaining environment for those more or less within mainstream orthodoxy.

I must say however, there were a few times when I was quite significantly irked at certain elements of the BYU system.  Without ranting too extensively, let me elaborate:

• The facial hair thing. This topic has been discussed ad-nauseum, so please, refrain from commenting profusely about this, but I have to say I was rather annoyed when I was turned away at the cafeteria for having 24 hours worth of scruff.
• Parking. This is a problem almost anywhere many people congregate, but the students really got the short end of the stick on this one.  The faculty get the premium spots, and the students get the lots that require 15 minute walks to campus.  Hmm… who’s the customer here again?  I ended up just walking, carpooling, busing, or biking most of the time.  This was one battle I did not feel like fighting.
• Image Paranoia. Keenly aware of its ambassador status for the Church, BYU is dead set on projecting the “Garden of Eden” image to the world.  My positions as BYU employee let me in on a few ins and outs of PR control, and I was disheartened to learn of a few administrative moves involving hush-money and cover-stories for the sake of saving face.  Also, while permitted/tolerated, student protests were met with high levels of disapproval from on high, and the tight lipped responses from BYU administrators regarding the relevant issues seemed a bit jarring.  (Remember the Dick Cheney graduation incident?)
• The dating scene myth. Its true that many couples meet and marry at BYU.  But I had been misled into believing that the girls are all righteous fair maidens with visions of eternal marriage dancing through their heads.  That bubble burst fairly early on, but I still never got quite the picture of how things were really supposed to work.  I did my fair share of dating, make no mistake, but let me tell you, it’s not what they say it is.  I’m still single.

I really could go on for much longer, about the good, and the not-so-good.  But let me say again, I am please to call myself a BYU grad, I enjoyed my experience, and I am very grateful for the career and employment paths that it has opened for me.  After all, that’s really why I went to college.

I know that BYU isn’t for everyone.  I had several close friends who never could hit a stride in the BYU universe, and became casualities of the system.  I like to remind people that BYU attendance is NOT a requirement for salvation, and many members of the church get by just fine without ever having set foot in Provo.

For me, I was a close enough match to the “target audience” that I got through the experience without a sour taste in my mouth.  Again, I look back on the past 6 years (minus 2 mission years) with satisfaction and accomplishment.

So for you fellow BYU alumns, how does your experience contrast to mine?  For non-alumns, how do my comments square up to your concept of what BYU is like for a student?  Or just feel free to throw out any comments about BYU in general.

Predictably, in my absence (which has been both busy and enjoyable), I have found myself missing our on-line conversation. Not so predictably, however. this feeling has led me to think quite a bit about (1) what keeps me coming back to MM and, more generally, to the Bloggernacle, and (2) what have I gained as a result of my participation. The first question is easy to answer — it’s the intellectual, emotional and, yes, spiritual stimulation I receive from the discussion. The second question, however, stuck in craw my quite some time. But, after much consideration, it boils to a simple, one-word answer . . .

Tolerance.

That’s right — I said that blogging, especially Mormon blogging, has taught me tolerance. I know that, given the heated exchanges seen here from time to time (can you say “same sex marriage”), that idea may sound funny, but let me explain myself.

I was born into the Church, my family was all active, and growing up in Las Vegas, there were plenty of other Mormon kids in my schools. One negative by-product of this otherwise great upbringing is that my exposure to ways of life and thinking other than my own was limited. Sure, like everyone else, I had friends who were not LDS and who engaged all manner of teenage debauchery. But, while many of them were lapsed something-or-other, none of them espoused any sort of cognizable faith or spiritualism. I was an undergraduate at BYU and well, let’s just say that it’s not necessarily the best place for gaining an appreciation of differing points of view. I went to law school in Ohio, but I had my head crammed so far up my torts book that I had no time for spiritual maturation.

So I think its truthful to say that it wasn’t until a few years ago, when I first discovered the Bloggernacle, that I began to explore what others mean when they say “I am a Mormon” or “I am a [fill in the blank].” I have to say it was an eye-opening experience. For the noob, the web is chock full of troubling facts about the Church, ranging from Adam-God Theology to Zelph. I’d be lying if I said these bits of information didn’t send my head reeling more than once. For many folks, this is a deal-breaker of an experience; I’ve had friends lose their faith based on what they have learned through blogs, and you probably do to (heck, maybe it happened to you).

Funny enough, I have found my involvement in the Bloggernacle to be an overall faith-promoting, rather than a faith-killing, proposition. Over the years, I have heard from jack Mormons, conservative Mormons, liberal Mormons, Iron Rod Mormons, Liahona Mormons, New Order Mormons, Buddhist-Mormons, social Mormons, cultural Mormons, gay Mormons, anti-Mormons, Sunstone Mormons, Ex-Mos, and TBMs. And while I have not always agreed with their points of view, I feel blessed to have been able to get to know them through their words and to learn from their experiences. Looking at my spiritual life now, I like to think that I am more open to differing points of view that I have been, and that I see Mormonism in particular as a much bigger tent than I ever did in the past. In other words, I feel more Christian in my attitudes towards my fellow man. I credit this new perspective chiefly to the Bloggernacle, and especially to MM. Thanks to you all for your (albeit unwitting) role in this transformation. I’m looking forward to jumping back into the waters with both feet.

To that end, here’s my Friday question for you all: what is the most important thing/lesson you have learned from your participation either here at MM, or in the larger world of the Bloggernacle? On the whole, has it been a positive or a negative experience for your spirituality? How has your involvement altered, if it has, your view of Mormonism and other Mormons.

A recent article in Time discussed the differences between liberal and conservative patriotism.  The key points really resonated with me for how Mormons view loyalty to the church.

Conservatives

• Hallmarks of Loyalty:  paying tribute to the past (Pioneer Day?) even while portraying an idealized past that never existed, preserving the culture even to the exclusion of initiates (Mormon colonialism?), a tendency to grade on a curve because they take a dim view of human nature (Mormon persecution complex, Haun’s Mill?); use of symbols to portray loyalty (Mormon artifacts in our homes?).
• Signs of Disloyalty (to a Conservative):  Criticism of the cultural norms or the glorious past; the infiltration of new norms into the culture; questioning the claim of greatness.
• What they get right:  There’s something to be said for loving the church like you love your (possibly dysfunctional) family:  because it is your heritage and your home.
• Cautions:  May become “nationalist” (“one true church” mentality) or dismissive of other faiths; tend to substitute myth for history; expect unquestioned loyalty to come first and foremost; over time, symbols and artifacts may become a substitute for real faith; may become a club for the pedigreed few.
• The Big Question:  Can the church truly embrace converts (and liberal loyalists alike) with a near majority conservative loyalty worldview?

Liberals

• Hallmarks of Loyalty:  Loyalty is to the ideals and concepts rather than to the organization; loyalty is about helping the church to live up to its potential in the future; new converts improve the church through diversity combined with commitment to the ideals; like to call the church on the carpet when it fails to live up to its ideals.
• Signs of Disloyalty (to a Liberal):  Not owning up to mistakes of the past; reliance on symbols rather than the ideals; elevating the status of “insiders” regardless of merit.
• What they get right:  They keep the church (and leaders and members) honest by refocusing on the ideals (may be JS restorationists) and being willing to ask the tough questions.
• Cautions:  Believe the church must earn the loyalty of its members by living up to its ideals which will not always be possible (fallibility of leaders and lay clergy); may dismiss the pragmatic realities necessary for the church’s self-preservation (policies vs. doctrines); if loyalty is to the ideals, one can seek the ideals elsewhere (but lose the benefit of the church framework and fellowship).
• The Big Question:  When liberals leave the church is it due to actual flaws of the church or their own Quixotic idealism?

The article cautioned both sides from going too far in asserting that their own patriotism is the only brand truly loyal to our country.  Isn’t that a great caution for us as Mormons?  Can’t we come to a moderate consensus about loyalty to the church that takes the best of both into account (or am I just being a liberal idealist to think so)?

So, are you a conservative, liberal or moderate Mormon?  How do you “reach across the aisle” to others?  Did you find anything new of value in the alternate perspective, or did this just confirm your biases?

Discuss.

Perhaps our feelings about tomorrow’s letter were abreacted in last week’s multifarious and sporadically acerbic discussion. My purpose here is to highlight some of the feelings and perspective of one who is connected to many aspects of the Church’s political action regarding gay marriage. My sister Emily is a lawyer in California, and gay (also kind, witty, and sagacious, but that is beside the point). Her journey through life has had a positive and profound impact on my family and I. I have learned a lot from her, but this issue specifically has inspired me to be more thoughtful and considerate of those who are different from my straight white male middle-class American self (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

I have often contemplated on the thought that members who have gay friends or family often seem to feel differently than those who do not (or who are not aware of it). The following is from an email regarding this topic she recently sent to the rest of our family and some friends.  With her approval, I would like to share it here:

This morning someone forwarded me the letter that went out, I knew about it but hadn’t seen it yet. I don’t know why I should all of a sudden be so hurt and disappointed, maybe it feels more directly threatening than previous times this ’cause’ has been taken up by the church but I am seriously considering showing up in my ward for the first time on a testimony meeting Sunday and offering a few thoughts. I am thinking about how I could get the word out to ‘inactive’ gay Mormons all over the state to suggest a similar effort… If people spoke from their hearts, no doubt many would be made a little uncomfortable, and some probably offended, but if it made them feel even a little conflicted then it would be a success. And it’s not like a whole lot is at stake for us in terms of our standing. I’ve worked so hard to maintain a positive attitude for many years but I am very very hurt and disappointed and angry right now.

One of my BYU professors, in whom I confided before I left there, said “there will be a lot of Mormons who won’t love you but you don’t have to turn your back on your faith.” I have often reflected on that. I don’t know if I would be able to go through with the testimony meeting address or not, but if I did I would want to do my best to have a spirit of love about it. Though it is deeply offensive that a religious, or any, private institution (and many of its constituents) feel completely justified in a effort to dictate my, and my friends’ civil, secular, and / or individual rights, but would probably not at all welcome the opposite in the form of a gay intrusion into their worship services, and part of me wishes I could get up and tell them that. I just don’t think it would be very helpful toward winning hearts and minds. I know how fearfully people react to anyone they perceive as a ‘hostile’ disaffected or ex-Mormon because that’s how I used to react, and fear is already big part of the problem.

I’m sorry if this is troubling to any of you but I am grateful that I’m now able to express these feelings, whereas even a year ago I don’t think I could have. A lot of that is due to your expressions of love and increased invitations for communication even when it’s challenging…

…In response to…why is it that gay people seem to make such a big deal about being gay, the point was…that if you’re not gay / lesbian you never really have to give it a second thought. If you’re holding hands on the street with your opposite-sex partner, you can be confident wherever you go that nobody will notice or care (other than maybe thinking how sweet it is to be in love). But if you’re gay, you have to decide if you feel safe or not just to express this simple little affection in public, because people might take it as some kind of ‘statement.’

Thanks for listening,

Emily

Green Flake, the slave of James Madison Flake, a convert to the LDS Church, is baptized at the age of 15. Green remains a slave but is a faithful member of the church throughout his life. Samuel Chambers, a 13-year-old, is baptized in secret because he is a slave. Walker Lewis, a black man in Lowell, Mass., is ordained an to the office of an Elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

Walker Lewis, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1846
William McCary, a black man, is ordained to the office of Elder.

1847
Elijah Abel arrives in Utah. A carpenter by trade, he works on building the Salt Lake Temple. He and his wife Mary Ann manage the Farnham Hotel. Mary Ann Abel was Negro according to the 1850 Hamilton County, Ohio, census and the 1860 Utah census.

1851
Elijah Abel arrives in Utah, where he works on building the Salt Lake Temple. He and his wife Mary Ann manage the Farnham Hotel. The couple asks to be “sealed” in marriage in the temple, which Brigham Young refuses. Abel had already been through the Kirtland Temple for washings and anointings and he was already baptized for the dead in Nauvoo.

1853
Elijah asked to receive his endowment and was denied by Brigham Young.

1854
Brigham Young frees Green Flake.

1858
All black Melanesians (Fijians) are given the priesthood (blacks in the Philippines even earlier)

1860
Utah Census lists 59 blacks, 29 of them are listed as slaves.

1883
Elijah Able is still on Church records as a Seventy.

1884
Elijah Able in his 70s is sent on yet another mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. He returns home early from his mission and dies in early December of 1884.

1900
Elijah Abel’s son, Enoch Abel, is ordained an elder.

1902
Jane Manning James, a faithful black Mormon since the days of Joseph Smith Jr., is given a special temple sealing as a “servant” to Joseph Smith Jr. She continues to pursue her endowment.

1934
Elijah Abel’s grandson is ordained a priest; a year later, he advances to elder.

1949
First Presidency statement on blacks and priesthood states the ban “is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the church from the days of its organization.”

1962
A missionary tract, the Joseph Smith Story, found its way into the hands of a black religious leader in Ghana, Dr. A.F. Mensah. He converts several others, sets up a church congregation and corresponds with the Church missionary department.

1964
After reading the Book of Mormon, J.W.B. Johnson forms the first “Latter-day Saint” congregations in Ghana, Africa.

1969
Fourteen University of Wyoming football players wanted to wear armbands for their games with Brigham Young University as a protest against the ban on blacks. Other athletes also protested.

1970
LDS President David O. McKay tells the Salt Lake Tribune that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse.”

1971

Genesis Group, a support group for black Mormons, is organized in Salt Lake City under the direction of then LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith with apostles Gordon B. Hinckley (pictured, with Genesis co-founder Darius Gray), Thomas S. Monson and Boyd K. Packer as advisers.

1978 June 8th
President Spencer W. Kimball announces a divine revelation opening the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or lineage. is announced. The events leading up to it and the revelation itself are judged to be a true miracle.

Now the time before the ban lets look at what life has been like after the ban was lifted.

1978
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, who wrote in Mormon Doctrine that blacks would never get the priesthood, states that “we should forget everything that has been said in the past on this topic.”

1990
Helvecio Martins set apart as first black General Authority as a member of the Quorum of the Seventy — the first black Seventy since Elijah Abel.

2002
Robert Foster elected BYU student body president.

2006
LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley condemns racism during the all-male priesthood session of the church’s Annual General Conference.

Where were you when you heard the Priesthood Ban was lifted.

I don’t know where I was on June 8th 1978 when the ban was lifted. But I can tell you where I was June 8th 2008. I was in Elders Quorum reading Official Declaration—2 to the Elders of Israel.

Jamie Trwth
Latte Day Saints

There are BYU professors, and there are BYU professors. Brother Keller is in a class by himself. His life story alone fascinates me. Converted to the church as a young adult, then left the church,  became an ordained Presbyterian pastor in Colorado, converted back to the LDS Church as an adult, and continued to maintain an interest in other religions, to the point of living in a Zen Buddhist monastery for a time, where he learned meditation and other lessons he later imparted to his students.

Three incidents come to mind which endear him to me:

I took his “Gospel and World Religions” class and he introduced us to the art of Zen Buddhist meditation. For about six minutes (which seemed like an eternity), the classroom was entirely silent while we meditated. I left the classroom literally laughing for joy from the stress relief, it being around final exam time and all. It was the most concentrated experience of peace I had found to that point in my young life.

In the same course, we were discussing the idea of blood and presumably DNA literally changing upon baptism in order to make a convert one of the house of Israel. This idea was propagated in a book by a respected LDS author at the time. Professor Keller’s response was perfect when challenged by a student who was advocating the idea: “I don’t believe it. And you don’t have to either. No matter who says it.” This was a shock to some in the class who were accustomed to a much more authoritarian theory of truth.

I took a follow-up course from Brother Keller called “American Christianity and the LDS Church” along with a friend of mine. Both of us were on intellectual trajectories which could very well have taken us out of Church activity. Brother Keller said something very perceptive at the end of the semester: “I know some of you have taken this class to get away from the LDS Church, but I hope that what you have learned here will help eventually bring you back towards it.” It did, Brother Keller.

I can’t say enough good about this man, although I’m disappointed that he shaved off his trademark mustache.

Do you have examples to share of teachers who’ve helped you stay Mormon, or just inspirational teachers in general?

Before John Dehlin, there was Jeff Burton.

Jeff, a mechanical engineer by profession who was once an LDS Social Services counselor, has helped countless Mormons stay in the Church and stay active after experiencing crises of faith. His book and website, For Those Who Wonder, (where you can download his book for free!) continue to minister to the needs of those who are looking for ways to reconcile their changed religious understandings with their love for, and desire to remain involved with, the LDS Church. He helped me see that I could “remodel” my Mormon “house” to suit my needs in a way that was compatible with the expectations of others who live in it.

After purchasing his book at the BYU bookstore, I began to correspond with him about serving a mission, a decision which weighed heavily on my mind. In these pre-”raised bar” days, he helped me see that my doubts about parts of the Joseph Smith narrative need not prevent me from serving. I could witness to the things which I did strongly believe, like the mission of Jesus Christ and His teachings, in improving people’s lives. I cannot overestimate the impact that his honest and refreshing advice had on an 18 year old who thought he was alone in the Church. Others had gone through the same struggles!

Unfortunately, in the MTC I sometimes pretended to “know” things I doubted. I resented the social pressure to constantly testify. Jeff sent me another letter in the MTC which gave me some good advice about honesty. I determined to be more honest in my convictions and to let the force of what I DID believe in overshadow the doubts I harbored about aspects of the Restoration, especially in my conversations with missionaries and investigators.

Interestingly, Jeff’s advice to be honest helped me with many members of the Church in Germany, who had similar doubts as mine. I became friends with a few souls who entrusted parts of their faith journey to me. We encouraged each other to hold on to the gospel of Jesus Christ, while letting go of the parts of the Restoration narrative that didn’t work for us. (As an aside, Germany is a great place to go to test your religious convictions! Between the ravages of World War II, the Holocaust, and the dominance of Euro-secularism, you are hard pressed to find fellow theists).

I followed Jeff’s trail to the Sunstone Symposium in Salt Lake when I returned to BYU post-mission. He was presenting on inactivity rates in different areas of the Church which was quite interesting.

Most recently, I shared my appreciation for his help in staying in a Church which has continued to bring me joy and fulfillment. If not for Jeff, who knows, I might have ended up Episcopalian!

Have any of you benefitted from counselors like Jeff?

The underlying assumption in taking 400 children out of their homes is that the lifestyle itself is harmful; invading the temple is a direct challenge to the FLDS religion’s legitimacy.  The total absence of ACLU intervention further indicates that there is no legal basis for protection and that national sympathy is lacking due to illegal polygamous behavior.  If the FLDS women are viewed as victims, it is as complicit victims.  As Alice Walker put it Possessing the Secret of Joy (her book about female genital mutilation), “One tree said to another:  I have seen the axe, and the handle is one of us.”

The responses to the raid have varied greatly.  There are articles praising TX for its bold action to safeguard women and children from a dangerous patriarchal and insular cult.  There are sympathetic posts by LDS who view this action as the Extermination Order II.  There are critics of the LDS who condemn any lack of sympathy on our part as being hypocritical.  There are women of the FLDS baffled as to why they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, their children taken from them, and their rights stripped.  I would like to explore the shift in approach TX has made, the legal and pragmatic implications of that, and the possible outcomes.

Growing up in the northeast (raised LDS), I had no idea that polygamy was still being practiced by anyone in the US.  I had assured my inquisitive high school friends that it had been done away with almost a hundred years ago.  I was truly shocked to find otherwise when I attended BYU.  My parents are converts, so we have no polygamous ancestry.  The first time I heard the term “polyg,” I thought it was an architectural style (“polyg houses”).  During my first temple recommend interview I had to ask what a “splinter group” was because I had no idea that (aside from the RLDS) there were other groups that had split from LDS.  The idea that anyone would voluntarily practice polygamy if there was any way out of it (e.g. the Official Declaration and it being made illegal) was beyond my comprehension.  My own teenage contemplation of polygamy really went no farther than to wonder whether it was something I could have lived if asked like some of those early church women, a safe enough exercise at a distance of a hundred years.  It was unpalatable, but as theoretical as other unpalatable things like eating a live cockroach or breast feeding.

Although I was initially outraged and chagrined that UT did not more actively prosecute polygamists who are clearly flouting the law, I gained a lot of respect over time for the pragmatic approach UT and AZ have taken.  Texas’ action, while bold, seems excessive; taking over 400 children from their mothers over one anonymous complaint of abuse is overreaching. As a contrast, there are recurring complaints of domestic abuse in some urban low income communities, but they don’t come in and take away all the children in all the neighboring apartments. And they would probably find a lot more abuse if they did.  It seems that people’s rights have been trampled and the innocent are being treated without much concern in a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.  The incident in Texas has been handled differently for several reasons:

1. Texas’ experience with polygamous sects is limited and recent whereas AZ and UT have had long-standing experience with polygamous sects.
2. One word:  Waco.
3. Everything’s bigger in Texas.
4. Some have suggested that Baptist sentiment is a force in this raid (at least at whipping everyone into a frenzy).
5. Some have suggested that an evangelical political plot is at play by casting the FLDS into the media at critical points in Mitt Romney’s political bid (either for POTUS or VP) to discredit him by a continual reminder that he descends from polygamists and is therefore too weird to hold such high office.

Having said all that, I would not shed a single tear if the end of polygamy is the outcome of this action.  I am thrilled polygamy was ended by the LDS in 1890.  And a religion (like FLDS) that encourages illegal behavior is inherently harmful if for no other reason than it creates a society of isolation and secrecy.  This type of secrecy can be directly harmful (creating an environment in which lying supersedes the truth), but secrecy is also indirectly harmful in that abuse can flourish in an isolated environment.

I acknowledge that there are issues wih prosecuting polygamy that make it difficult because consensual polygamous marriages are not legal; therefore, being in a polygamous marriage is not illegal because you’re only married to one person legally. It’s not illegal in this country to have consensual unmarried sex and children with many partners.  It’s called “hooking up,” and it’s quite popular (throw in a tramp stamp and a hairdo, and these women would not be getting hauled off in Baptist school buses).  So, prosecution usually focuses on:
1 - statutory rape
2 - abuse
3 - welfare fraud

Obviously, statutory rape and abuse usually require a complainant, difficult to obtain in most cases, but even moreso in a secretive group already wary of outsiders where patriarchal authority is unquestioned.  Welfare fraud feels a bit like nabbing Al Capone for postal fraud.  And it may fall into the “bigger fish to fry” category for pragmatic reasons.

So, what can be done?  If I were running the world, here are a few radical changes I would suggest (speaking of overreaching):
1 – raise the legal marriage age to 18 nationally, no exceptions. 18 is still too young if you ask me.  If I had to live with choices I made at 18 . . . well, I’m just glad I do not.
2 – eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).

And lastly, if this does mean the end of polygamy (because it is being attacked directly for the first time), take the following steps:
1 – grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships. This requires ongoing monitoring, but if you’re going to take down polygamy, it’s the only way.  Otherwise, TX has to follow the AZ and UT lead and only prosecute what can be prosecuted directly.  Placing all the children into foster care seems unduly harsh; if the mothers were given a way to retain their children, even if it meant giving up their (sort of) illegal religious practice, many would comply.
2 – research and prosecute for every instance of abuse, statutory rape, and welfare fraud.  Go after these things with a vengeance until they are completely eliminated.

So, do you believe Texas has overreached?  And will Texas take it to the mattresses or not?  Does this mean the end of polygamy (again, once and for all)?  Or will TX back off and follow the lead of AZ & UT, only prosecuting what is feasible?  Will the ACLU ever intervene?  And if the end of polygamy occurs, can we “re-patriate” this splinter group into mainstream America?  Will they ultimately renounce Jeffs as a false prophet, leave the FLDS, and join the LDS?  Would they choose their children over their lifestyle if presented with that alternative?

A bit of background: I’m a relative late comer to England’s work. He was still teaching at BYU when I was there (’90-’91, ’94-’96), but I never took a class from him. All I heard was that he was “one of those Sunstone-type liberal Mormons.” Given my limited world-view at the time, I paid him little mind, assuming that he would talk himself out of the Church sooner or later. It was only a few years ago that I found a collection of his essays on-line via Signature Books. After that, I couldn’t get enough, and have spent many hours since curled up with an essay or symposium recording.

For me, England sits apart from other big names in the Mormon Studies world. I see folks like Michael Quinn and Todd Compton as the “head” of that particular body — they are fact gatherers, interested in overturning every possible stone in hopes of unearthing new facts shedding light on Obscure Historical Issue #467 (What phase was the moon in on the day of the First Vision?; What did he eat for lunch in Liberty jail?). Don’t get me wrong, these are worthwhile endeavors, but can leave one lacking spiritually. England, by contrast, is the “heart” of the movement. He rarely focused on historical minutia. Rather, he dealt with big-picture questions: what does it mean to be a Christian? What does it mean to become “like God” in the hereafter and how do we prepare ourselves now for that state? How will men and women be united in the afterlife?

Heady stuff. As I’ve been re-reading some of my favorite essays, it has come to mind that, while we often pay homage to England, we’re more reticent to actually incorporate the lessons he taught into our worship. That’s a shame, in my book. In hopes of remedying the situation, I offer below two main themes of England’s work which, I believe, have the potential to aid us in our journey toward perfection, both as individuals and as a Church.

[A quick disclaimer: this post does not aspire to be a comprehensive survey of England's body of work. Feel free to let me know in the comments if you think I've mischaracterized him or his writing in any way.]

1. A “Theology Of Peace”: I’ve written at length in other places about the travails of being a Mormon Democrat, a role which often puts me at odds politically with almost all of my friends and fellow worshipers on any given Sunday. For the most part, that difference doesn’t bother me; I believe the world is big enough for Mormons from all over the political spectrum. However, what I do find heartbreaking is the lengths to which some of my more conservative-leaning Mormon friends will go to justify the war in Iraq. Armed (pardon the pun) with plenty of scriptures from Alma and Helaman, they prattle on about the need to use force to defeat evil, and speak in platitudes about “modern Gadianton robbers.”

This is not the Christianity I know. England offers a counterpoint to this approach. As he taught it, LDS theology — which he deemed a “theology of peace” — mandates the principle and practice of “effective pacifism,” whereby “we are called to do whatever we can that will genuinely create peace, even sacrifice our own lives.” The central tenet of this philosophy, drawn from the same scriptural basis relied on by Latter-Day hawks, is: “Enemies cannot be defeated, they can only be changed into other than enemies by true principles of love, and God will provide the power to do that if we will trust him and pay the price of trying things his way.” Christ taught that we must “love our enemies”; England believed that if were to take this principle seriously, it would bring peace not only to us individually, but also collectively to the nations of the world. Such a stratagem requires the most difficult of disciplines: knowing and treating your enemies as “humans like ourselves.” England, ever the realist, recognized that this theory would not always work, and he made room for a compromise position analogous to the Catholic notion of “just war.” But, in his eyes, “effective pacifism” is an ideal worth striving for.

Imagine the possibilities were the U.S. to adopt this approach in dealing with the Middle East. Could resisting the temptation to tear down existing political, social and economic structures abroad as a means for “bringing about a government more to our liking” have saved any of the thousands of lives lost? If we come to see the Iranians as children of the same Father in Heaven, rather than as godless heathens, how would that inform our approach towards them in this heated political climate? Thinking closer to home, if I were to recognize my neighbors first as sons and daughters of God, my thoughts and actions towards them necessarily would be lifted by an increase of love. Rather than finding cause for conflict, I would take the opportunity to serve them unconditionally.

2. Being “Mormon”: For my money, this was England’s forté. England was a Mormon, through and through. His essays are brimming with anecdotes from his childhood involving family prayers, conference trips and attending “boring” meetings. England saw everything through the prism of LDS theology. For example, he crafted well-reasoned, but always uniquely Mormon, positions on virtually every major political event from the 1960′s through the 1990′s, from Watergate to the Cold War to the Operation Desert Storm. Regardless of whether you agree(d) with him, England was not afraid to take a stand while flying his Primary-colored flag high (for those of you who have forgotten, our primary colors — sing it with me — are red, yellow and blue.)

But England’s deep and abiding love for Mormonism went well beyond his cultural and political endeavors. He grappled with the issue of what it truly means to be a member of the Church, and how that relates to being a disciple of Christ. England taught that former is a means to achieving the latter. Put another way:

The Church is true in large part because it provides an opportunity, for all who are willing, to endure all these things — and also to be guilty of them — and thus to learn how to be merciful, to be patient and forgiving, to accept forgiveness and help, to love unconditionally so we can accept the unconditional love of the Atonement and be saved.

The key to the Atonement, therefore, is to learn to love those with whom we disagree, or who hold opinions/beliefs that we find repugnant. Mandatory church attendance is a laboratory for developing this Christ-live and charity. It is our responsibility to progress beyond being mere “consumers” of the services offered at Church; we must actively participate in providing those services to others. To do so, we must resist the natural urge to find fault with, or to be offended by even the most genuinely offensive behavior of, our fellow travelers:

The Gospel is so overwhelmingly valuable that it crowds out the temptation to be overwhelmed by the mistakes people make trying to translate its ideals into specific Church expression and action — the real intellectual problems and puzzles that such human expression of the Gospel can get us involved in.

This statement took my breath away the first time I read it and, since then, it has changed (for the better) the way I view my place in the Church. Imagine how such an approach could enrich our everyday Church activity? How effective would your Ward be were it filled with “doers” as opposed to “consumers?”

This point is especially salient for those of us who frequent this insular world we call the Bloggernacle. It often seems we spend most of our time venting frustration that “regular” Mormons are unfairly dismissive of, or openly hostile to, what we perceive as our more enlightened/open-minded views. “I have to keep my mouth shut in Elders’ Quorum” and “nobody in my ward is interested in hearing the truth about Historical Issue X” are all-too-common refrains. We express a longing for unity and more open channels of communications.

At the same time, however, we hypocritically jump at the chance to find fault in those same members, with our most pointed criticism reserved for those in leadership positions. We further set ourselves apart from the pack by affixing labels such as “liberal” or “Liahona” Mormons. Were we to apply England’s vision of the Church, we would see the pettiness of such back and forth. Constructive dialogue and debate are healthy for, and necessary to, the building of a vibrant community. Bickering, however, serves only to divide us, and distance us all from Christ. How much more could we accomplish if our conversation was stripped of this infighting and prejudice?

There’s more to say, and further lessons to be learned, but this post is already too long. I hope that we can all take a second look at Brother England’s work and, as we do, that we dare to grapple with the questions he raised. Brother England, wherever you are, thanks for everything — although we never met, your words have been a ray of hope in my life.

And so it’s a kind of treat for me these days to get to visit a place where Mormonism and the landscape are coterminus. I just got back home from a 3-day trip to Utah County, Utah. Utah Valley University (as UVSC will soon be known) invited me to present at their annual Mormon Studies Conference and was generous enough to spring for the trip.

It goes without saying that Utah Valley is very, very Mormon. My book for the airplane this trip was American Vertigo — Bernard-Henri Lévy’s attempt to retrace Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal travelogue.  Lévy’s observations traveling around America remind me that commenting on the foreignness of Mormondom’s heartland is surely a well-plowed furrow on the Bloggernacle. And yet I shall plow on.

Just as Lévy inevitably visited the Mall of America in the suburbs of my hometown of Minneapolis, so I too visited Orem’s Missionary Mall.

Beneath the giant inflated missionary (shouldn’t he have an inflated companion?), young men called to serve can buy all the durable suits their mission will require. The same strip mall has a “Sister Missionary Mall” store too, plus a Deseret Book, an LDS Distribution Services center, two food storage preparation stores, an LDS wedding dress shop, as well as my personal favorite clothing store: “KneeShorts.”

Of course we were able to get fry sauce at Burgers Supreme — is there any clearer sign that you’re in Zion? — but it was also available in bulk at the grocery store. The grocery store had two full racks of LDS greeting cards: “Congratulations on your Mission Call!”  There was even a Spanish section: ”Felicidade en tu Bautismo!”

Beyond all that fun, the real treat for me was the BYU library. The University of Michigan has a decent Mormon history library — probably about twice as many books as I have. Both are just a drop in the vast sea of books and periodicals lining row after row of shelves at BYU. I could hang out in the general book stacks contentedly for weeks without coming up for air. But little more than an hour was possible because an even more tempting treasure lured me deeper into the library: the special collections archive.

The archives house a vast trove of early Mormon materials. Just one example — I was able to access a box containing a couple dozen letters my ancestors wrote to each other in the 1860s and 1870s. (The actual letters, not copies.) The LDS branch of the family lived in Salt Lake valley and the other (who had left Mormonism) lived in Council Bluffs. In one letter, written by my great great grandmother, she described meeting a young man while attending school.  Sometime after the letter was penned this young man went on to become my great great grandfather.

As I was leaving special collections I ran into a scholar who had also come from out of state for the Mormon Studies conference. Having found his own priceless treasure, he told me, “Every minute I’m here is precious,” and added, “What’s shocking is how many people live in this valley and have never once taken advantage of the resources right here that we have to plan and travel to find!”

Too true!

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

“We may never know the full story since the bishop does not wish to comment and the school is citing privacy to keep things quiet. Regardless, the entire episode may have some stereotypical ramifications on the national level. But at least it has been resolved in a manner that seems more reasonable for every party involved to minimize the damage. “

From the Deseret News:

“Brigham Young University baseball star Kent Walton, who had been dismissed from school after his ecclesiastical endorsement was withdrawn by his bishop, is enrolled at BYU again and has returned to the Cougars’ baseball team, coach Vance Law told the Deseret Morning News Thursday night. “

Thoughts?