A child is born in Bukavu

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

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

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

The morning breaks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am trying to be like Jesus

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

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

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

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

Love one another

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  (This is a shorter version–more details are found here.)  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting federal anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  I’ll be taking my quotes from 2 books: Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington.

It was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln that the first federal anti-polygamy legislation passed Congress, but Lincoln wanted to ignore the issue.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery.  In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)

banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.^[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in the Utah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.^[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

The footnote at Wikipedia is especially interesting.  Quoting from the book, Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803, http://books.google.com/books?id=9AimifP2a-4C,

“Having signed the Morrill Act, Abraham Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was ‘too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.’”

If the church had capitulated at this point, I can understand critics who say that the church traded polygamy for statehood.  The church had been applying for statehood for 40 years when it finally happened, and were always ignored by Congress.  In fact, the state of Utah is less than half the size of the original territory of Deseret.  Congress split the Deseret Territory, and created the territory of Nevada.  Congress continued to take away slices of Utah and added them to Nevada in 1861, 1864, and 1866.  Check out this map.  Nevada even became a state before Utah, even though it was created after Utah.

Utah continued to practice polygamy in defiance of federal law for another 20 years following the Morrill Act.  Congress made several attempts to handle “The Mormon Question”.  Leonard Arrington (former church historian) documents some of these laws on page 357 from his book called Great Basin Kingdom.  (Much more detail is in the book.)

• The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 – passed.
• The Wade Act of 1866- failed to pass.  It would have prohibited church officers from solemnizing marriages, would have taxed the church, taken over the Nauvoo Legion, and sent federal officials to take over all government responsibilities, among other things.
• The Cullom Bill of 1869-70 – passed House but failed Senate.  Plural wives would have been deprived of immunity as witnesses involving their husband.  It would have authorized the President to send army of 25,000 to Utah, and would confiscate all property of any Mormon.
• The Ashley Bill of 1869 – failed to pass.   Here’s an exact quote:  “The bill provided for “the dismemberment” of Utah by transferring large slices of it to Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado.”
  
• The Poland Act of 1874 – passed.  Gave federal attorney general and federal jurisdiction  over criminal, civil and chancery (equity) cases in Utah.
• The Edmunds Act of 1882 – passed.  Quoting from page 358, the act

“put teeth” in the 1862 law and attempted to eliminate the Mormon Church as a power in Utah by vesting the political machinery of the territory in federal non-Mormon appointive officers.  Specifically, the Edmunds Act provided heavy penalties for the practice of polygamy: defined cohabitation with a polygamous wife as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $300, by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both; declared all persons guilty of polygamy or cohabitation incompetent for jury service; and disfranchised and declared ineligible for public office all persons guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation…all elective offices were declared vacant…persons professing belief in polygamy or cohabitation as a religious principle, whether or not proved guilty of their practice, were ineligible to vote and to hold public office…in the first year of its existence it had excluded some 12,000 men and women from registration and voting.

when, on March 3, 1885, the Supreme Court denied  Clawson’s appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the law, territorial officials commenced the intensive prosecution of Mormon leaders in Utah and elsewhere known as “The Raid.”

Polygamous marriage being difficult to establish in the courts, the most common charge against the Mormons what of unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months in jail, or both.

…

There were 1,004 convictions for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds Act between 1884 and 1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society.  The period from 1885 to 1890 was marked by intensive “polyg hunts” for “cohabs.”  Officials of the church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.  Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives “for time and all eternity,” they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert these women in order to avoid punishment provided in the law of Babylon.  Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that rigorous enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional, church leaders–nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives–went “underground.”

…page 360

With almost all leaders of Latter-day Saint communities in prison or in hiding, business establishments were abandoned, or were kept in operation by inexperienced wives and children.  The ownership of the co-operatives drifted into the hands of a few individuals and eventually were converted into private enterprises.  Those United Orders which had survived until this period were discontinued.  There were no further meetings of Zion’s Central Board of Trade.  Almost every business history, in short, shows stagnation; almost every family history records widespread suffering and misery.  Above all, the church, as prime stimulator, financier, and regulator of the Mormon economy, was forced to withdraw from participation in most phases of activity.  The Raid, in other words, was a period of crippled group activity of every type, of decline in cooperative trade and industry–a period when, above all, church economic support was essential but not forthcoming–a period when planning would have saved much, but when planners dared not plan.

A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile.  Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends…Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act

Nevertheless, the Edmunds Law was unable to force a change in the attitude of Latter-day Saint authorities. It was an unwilling cross, but one which the create majority of members seemed prepared to bear rather than yield on what they regarded a religious principle.  Congress therefore moved almost immediately to increase the pressure, and after considering several proposals during a number of sessions, adopted, on February 19, 1887, an amendment to the 1862 law known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Enacted into law without the signature of President Grover Cleveland, this “Anti-Polygamy Act,” as it was entitled, amended the 1862 law to provide as follows:

1.  That the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, insofar as it had, or pretended to have, any legal existence, was dissolved.  The United States Attorney General was directed to instituted proceedings to accomplish dissolution.

2.  That the Attorney General institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat all property, both real and personal, of the dissolved church corporation held in violation of the 1862 limitation of $50,000, which was reaffirmed.  The property was to be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and the proceeds applied to the use and benefit of the district schools of Utah.

The books continues on, with 3 more items, including the abolition of women suffrage.  (Utah was the first or second state to allow women to vote–quite progressive, eh?)  Continuing from page 361,

The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a direct bid to destroy the temporal power of the Mormon Church.  Congressional leaders reasoned that the church would have to yield on the principle of plural marriage or suffer destruction as an organization of power and influence.  Church leaders did not see the matter in this light, however.  They believed (and were supported in this belief by several constitutional lawyers of national reputation) that several features of the Edmunds-Tucker Act were unconstitutional.  They further declared that they could not revoke the principle of polygamy:  Only God could do that; and, if He so decided, He would do so by direct revelation to the church–not by prohibitory national legislation.

The book details how many properties, including the Tithing Office, were placed or sold into private church members and/or stake hands, and hidden as much as possible.  A series of legal battles ensued as federal officials tried to track down church assets.  However, the government did uncover many of these transactions, and took control of the assets.  Arrington goes into great detail about many of these trials.  A trustee was appointed, and he charged enormous fees to maintain records of these properties.  He was removed later, but many of the church properties were squandered as payment for his services.

In January 1889, the church challenged the constitutionality of the confiscated properties, but lost again in the Supreme Court.  From page 375, the majority Supreme Court opinion read,

“Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power of Congress to do as it did.”

However, the opinion was not unanimous.  Chief Justice Fuller and associate justices Field and Lamar

wrote a short but vigorous dissent based on the States’ Rights doctrine which had reached its farthest in the Dred Scott decision.  Wrote the Chief Justice:

In my opinion, Congress is restrained, nor merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, express or implied in that instrument….  If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation.  In my judgment, its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.

From page 377,

The second effect of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act was the church “Manifesto” proclaiming an end to the performance of plural marriage.

The Supreme Court decision on May 19, 1890 was nearly the final blow.  David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom page 354 outlines an even more ominous problem.

What made this ruling truly ominous was the appointment two months later of Henry W. Lawrence, a leader of the Godbeite schism, as receiver of church property.  He replaced the moderate former U.S. marshal Frank H. Dyer, who had earlier agreed to keep hands off the church’s temples under the provision of the law that exempted buildings used exclusively for “the worship of God.”  The Utah Supreme Court had approved this determination.  Now Lawrence and U.S. attorney Charles Varian, reappointed in 1889 by President Harrison, made it known they intended to overturn the agreement on the ground that temples in Logan, St. George, and Manti did not qualify for exemption since they were not places of public worship.  If upheld, this move would lead to confiscation of the church’s holiest places, where its most sacred ordinances were performed, including marriages.

Arrington writes in Great Basin Kingdom on page 355 that Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,

“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:

Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.

Forgotten Kingdom adds additional detail here.  From page 356,

While many treated the manifesto with skepticism, one who took it at face value was the magistrate who had sent more men to prison for violating  the marriage laws than anyone else.  The day after it was sustained, Judge Charles Zane on October 7 said that he would record the church “opposed to polygamy hereafter, unless something happened to change my opinion,” and he began only to fine violators, but not impose prison time.

Arrington, author of Great Basin Kingdom concurs discusses the issue of statehood on page 377,

The Manifesto declaring an end to officially sanctioned plural marriages also enabled the Mormons to achieve the goal of statehood, which had been denied them for over forty years.  Statehood gave them the prospect of getting rid, once and for all, of the unwanted and unfriendly federally appointed governors, judges, marshals, attorneys, and commissioners who had fought against them since 1852.  As part of the “deal” by which this was arranged, church officials are said to have given congressional and administration leaders to understand that they would support a proposition to prohibit forever the practice of polygamy in Utah; that the church would dissolve its Peoples’ Party and divide itself into Republican and Democratic supporters; and that the church would discontinue its alleged fight against Gentile business and relax its own economic efforts….The Raid had finally culminated in the long-sought goal of statehood, but had produced capitulation in many areas of Mormon uniqueness, not the least of which was the decline in the economic power and influence of the church.  The temporal Kingdom, for all practical purposes, was dead–slain by the dragon of Edmunds-Tucker.

So, what do you make of these events?  Did the church wimp out?  Should the church have defended the temples like the Jews did in the days of Nero?  Many Jews died, the temple was taken anyway and hasn’t been rebuilt in 2000 years.

The Story of Alexander Doniphan is well-known and probably does not need to be recounted here (For more information see Mormon Heretics Post – A Memorial Day Jack Mormon or see this).  Very simply: when a number of the leaders of the Church were threatened with execution the man asked to carry it out, Alexander Doniphan, refused to do so on the grounds that he thought it was illegal.  He is now recounted in LDS history as an example of integrity.  However, his refusal is also an example of dissent and viewed from another point of view would not be lauded as it now is.  For example, if a Stake President refuses to excommunicate someone, at the request of a higher General Authority, because they feel that is the right thing to do, would their integrity be praised?  Is there a way of valuing LDS dissenters and what is the criteria for doing so?

I want to use the example of Hugh Nibley as someone who successfully navigated this treacherous path.  He has written: “There may be things about the Church that I find perfectly appalling. But I know the gospel is true.” [1]  Many of his more popular writings have been critical of the Church’s culture and leadership and yet he is accepted and even quoted.  He even published with Signature Books; which as you know is just asking for trouble.  Neal A. Maxwell has said: “Hugh, of course, is above the fray not in the sense of his being esoteric or highly advanced but likewise I think his commitment has been so visible and so pronounced and so repetitively stated so that’s not even the issue.  So then we get on to what is Hugh saying?” [2] 

Is it enough to be visible, vocal and pronounced about your commitment?  Michael Quinn believes that his essay on Post-Manifesto Polygamy was one of the reasons that he was excommunicated[3] and yet this essay has a declaration of his continued faith in the Gospel.   In addition, I have heard many who fear being ostracised or disciplined for views they espouse online, even if they would fall under the category of things you find ‘perfectly appalling’.  It seems to me that there is an acceptable limit to dissent, but where is that limit?  What else is required to be within the limits of faithful dissent?

Lowell Bennion argues that we do not have to “accept any interpretation of scripture (I would add this applies to any ‘revelation or direction’) that denies the impartiality or love of God or the free agency and brotherhood of man. These concepts are too basic to the gospel to be denied by someone’s interpretation of a verse of scripture”[4]  or a policy.  Bennion suggests that we can legitimately dissent if we can justify it upon the basic ethical principles of Christ’s message (like Doniphan did).  Yet, to what extent is this a viable option for individuals within the Church? Eugene England shares the experience of being a Sunday School teacher for a few weeks before being released for expressing his ’liberal’ views on some sections of the O.T.[5].  Clearly this was not an acceptable level of dissent.

In addition Jeffrey R. Holland has discussed the line(s) of faithful dissent in the extreme cases.  He has said “We don’t discipline people in this church for very much.”  Moreover, he thinks the “church has a history of being very, very generous.”  In addition he argues that there are ”lines” plural that members should not cross, if they want to retain the blessings of being a member of the Church.  He believes that “The chief among these is the issue of advocating against the church” because then “the institution itself cannot retain its identity and still allow that”.  For example, he notes that “There are plenty of people who question the historicity of the Book of Mormon, and they are firmly in this church and the church isn’t going to take action against that. [The church] probably will be genuinely disappointed, but there isn’t going to be action against that, not until it starts to be advocacy: “Not only do I disbelieve in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, I want you to disbelieve.”" Yet it seems to me that there is a fine line between advocacy and discussing, raising questions and writing about these issues.

Questions:

• Where do you see the limit of Faithful Dissent? 
• Why is a declaration of commitment and faith not enough in some cases?
• Is there a space for dissent within the Church upon ethical principles, like Bennion argues?
• Does Elder Holland sound like he is accurately defining that limit and do you agree that this is an appropriate limit?

Notes:

1. Hugh Nibley, Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978], xvii.

2. Neal A. Maxwell, Faith of an Observer [Provo: BYU & FARMS, 1985].  A Transcript is available here.

3. Michael Quinn, Transcript for The Mormons, PBS [online].  A Transcript is available here.

4. Lowell L. Bennion, The Best of Lowell L. Bennion: Selected Writings 1928-1988, edited by Eugene England [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1988], 208.

5. Eugene England, Why the Church is as True as the Gospel in Sunstone [Salt Lake City: Sunstone Education Foundation, Dec 1999].

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)

In his new book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell shares some interesting and scary information that correlate plane crashes with a cultural respect for authority. He shares the story of a specific plane crash on Korean Air in which an analysis of the dialogue as recorded on the “black box” clearly shows (to someone who understands the language and what its built in deferential markers mean) that at least 2 of the crew members knew they were off course and in danger of crashing, but would not directly tell the pilot out of respect for his authority.  Because the pilot was exhausted and stressed out, he failed to notice their hints and instead flew the plane into the side of a mountain in foggy conditions, killing over 100 passengers & crew.

This problem is related to Power-Distance Index, or the cultural expectation of respect for hierarchy.  The PDI differs greatly from culture to culture and is ingrained into that culture, insinuated in both language & customs.  Countries with high PDI had the following characteristics:

• High reliance on leaders for decision-making. Leaders are expected to be decisive, their decisions are followed without question; leaders are consulted for more routine decisions than in low PDI countries.
• Lower expectations of non-leaders. Non-leaders are discouraged from expressing opinions or making decisions (er, “the thinking is done”).  They are subordinates in every sense of the word.
• Restrictions on how subordinates are permitted to express their needs. In the highest PDI cultures, this is restricted to very indirect “hints,” which within the context of the culture are generally understood by leaders as a way for the leader to retain authority but save face.  However, this structure relies heavily on leaders’ ability and willingness to listen and respond to these hints.
• Fear of backlash. In very high PDI countries, subordinates were sometimes physically struck when they irritated their leaders or were too direct.  Fear and intimidation clearly impacted how willing subordinates were to speak up.
• Strong reliance on rules & plans. These cultures discourage deviation from accepted procedures, even when circumstances clearly dictate that normal procedures will be ineffective.

Conversely, low PDI cultures are generally the opposite of the above:

• Subordinate or employee-focused culture. Leaders tend to be apologetic about being leaders and ultra-sensitive to subordinates.  This is the basis for the concept of “servant leadership.”  (Or as Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker:  “With great power comes great responsibility.”)
• Shared responsibility for communication.  In a low PDI culture, the speaker is expected to ensure understanding.  The receiver of the message is also expected to listen attentively.  In a high PDI culture, only leaders are considered responsible for the receiving of the message.  The speaker’s input is not considered necessary anyway.
• Equality culture. Subordinates are valued as having unique roles or expertise that give them insight and make their input critical.  Their opinions are expected and weighed based on merit; there is a free exchange of ideas regardless of level.  Speaking up, even in disagreement with a superior may be rewarded in these cultures, even if done tactlessly or aggressively.
• High innovation and creativity. These cultures are very willing to abandon established procedures and brainstorm new ideas when circumstances dictate.  They tend to be flexible and innovative.

Just to give you a taste, here’s how a few countries stacked up on PDI.  High PDI countries (with strong respect for authority):

1. Brazil
2. South Korea
3. Morocco
4. Mexico
5. Philippines

Low PDI countries (note the commonality created by language):

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Ireland
5. United States

So, based on these parameters, is Mormonism a high-PDI culture or a low-PDI culture or somewhere in between?  Does it vary by region or is it common across the entire religion, preserved in the language and customs and doctrines?  How much does it vary from person to person? What are the boundaries of respect for authority in Mormon culture (what would even the staunchest Saint refuse to do)?

Based on the above, I would have a hard time considering most Mormon culture to be high PDI (as I might have expected), yet there are some elements of both high and low PDI.  To some extent, this could be due to the fact that the concept of hierarchy is mixed:

• Quorum Leadership.  There is an “oligarchy” in that we consider all the apostles to be “prophets” and their personalities differ greatly.  Yet all are viewed as being on the same “level.”  Some of them are high PDI individuals; others are low PDI.
• Christ as the Head.  Ultimately, we consider Christ to be at the head of the church, and since our notion of Christ is something personal (everyone can have a relationship with their Savior), we have a “bat phone” to the man at the top.  That’s usually a low PDI indicator.  The fact that Christ is not physically on the earth further reduces PDI.  Everyone’s notion of Christ has somewhat equal creedence so long as it is not directly and clearly contradicted by doctrine.
• Lay Clergy.  Positions are temporary, and we are all volunteers.  No one is being paid or truly promoted, and anyone could be called to serve in any capacity at any time.  There are instances of “unrighteous dominion” (high PDI), but there are also many committees and quorums making decisions at the lowest level possible (low PDI).  Again, there’s a lot of variation based on individuals in leadership having a high or low PDI personally.

In general, I would say that the church is mixed, with both high and low PDI elements, and that it varies more from individual to individual (meaning there is not necessarily a predominant culture).  What do you think?

Discuss.

“We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”

“Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe in obeying the laws of the country in which they live. Members of the Church are counseled to be good citizens, to participate in civil government and the political process, and to render community service as concerned citizens.” reference: Mormon.org

Obeying the law and being good citizens in the larger community is a foundational principle of our Church. In the 20^th century, our consistency with this principle opened surprising doors in countries closed to other religious denominations.

The former German Democratic Republic (East Germany) allowed the LDS Church to build a temple in Freiburg in the late 1980’s. It was still a communist, cold-war, Soviet satellite nation. The peaceful and obedient example set by members of the LDS Church trapped behind the Iron Curtain after WWII gave the East German government the level of confidence they needed to accept such a religious structure in their land. The Freiburg temple was actually the FIRST temple built on German soil. The West German temple was built a couple years later.

The positive aspects of being engaged with, and supportive of governments, being obedient to the laws of the land, and honoring our communities has been a great tool to reach out with the Gospel.

I would like to pose this question: Where do we draw the line?  When do we have to say “no?”

There certainly has to be a point where we can not obey the law. Jesus answered the Pharisees and Herodians “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” At some points in history though, “Caesar” crosses the line.

Is it acceptable to go to war and kill other people for our rulers? I’m not talking about defending ourselves from direct attack, but to “protect our international interests.”

Is it ok for members to actively support a government that represses basic freedoms?

Is it noble for members to actively support a government that imprisons and tortures political dissidents?

At what point do faithful LDS members have an obligation to actively oppose their rulers?

What is your personal line in the sand?  I would love to hear what you all think about this personally.

[Please note, I will actively moderate rants about specific countries or political parties that do not add to a constructive and positive discussion.  Thank you in advance for that cooperation!]

Sanya Richards, Olympic athlete, is confident that she will be the first to cross the finish line in the 400 meter race.   91,000 fans at Beijing National Stadium and millions more on television will be watching the event.  Richard plans to drop to her knees, say a quick prayer and then point skyward in spiritual appreciation. This might not be a problem if the Olympics was being held in any of a number of countries. However, the Chinese government frowns upon public displays of faith outside state-sanctioned religious events and does not allow proselytizing.

This news story came to my attention because Olympic athletes who plan to openly display their faith on the playing field face somewhat the same dilemma my family did when we lived in Saudi Arabia this past year.  Saudi is another country which does not allow public religious meetings or proselyting.  While our local leaders advised us not to proselyte, we did hold worship services surreptitiously.  Perhaps the situation is a bit different because of the scale and the publicity involved.  But the issue raises questions for religious adherants.  Should respect for others’ beliefs be the overriding consideration in actions performed while in their countries?  Or should one stand as a beacon for what they believe and “let the consequence follow?”

In 1968 when John Carlos and Tommie Smith stood on the Olympic medal podium in Mexico City and raised their fists in the black power salute, not only were they were suspended from their national team and banned from the Olympic Village where the athletes lived during the games, they were also vilified for years to come. Reaction to their act of civil disobedience was so strong that they and their families even received death threats.  Today, the act is seen as courageous and respected.  They were recently awarded the Arthur Ashe Award for Courage at last month’s ESPYs.

How should religion and respect for others’ sensibilities be negotiated?  How far have Latter-day Saints carried civil disobedience in the past, and has it changed today?