A close friend of mine who wishes to remain anonymous recently saw in the shadow of the temple his story follows

In October, I was fortunate to attend the Portland, Oregon, screening of the movie, In the Shadow of the Temple. http://www.intheshadowofthetemple.com The screening was hosted by the producers, Karen Di Millia and Dennis Lavery. Prior to the screening Dennis and Karen spoke for 10 minutes and explained how they started this project. After the screening they took questions and answers for roughly 30 minutes.

Lavery and DeMillia, who are not–and never have been–LDS, originally planned to make a movie about people who had left the religion of their youth. They attended a meeting of the Portland Humanist Society, explained their project, and asked if anyone had such stories they would be willing to share. In the course of discussing the project with members of the society, they were told that who they really needed to talk to was Sue Emmett, who had left the LDS church. After talking with Sue and others with whom she put them in touch, they decided to re-focus their project on the experience of those who have left the LDS church.

They did hundreds of hours of interviews over two years and edited it down to a 55 minute film. The film is very moving–a tribute to those who shared their stories as well as DeMillia and Lavery’s videography and editing skills.

About two dozen people appear in interviews in the film. Each story is unique, but a common thread runs throughout them all. All faced a similar rejection by family, friends and community. Some of those interviewed have left the church. Others no longer believe, but remain active because of family or community pressure. The latter are filmed in shadows, to obscure their identity. The film refers to these people as “Shadow Mormons.” They define “Shadow Mormons” as those who privately do not accept the exacting doctrine of the Church, but publicly profess to be true believers. They are in shadow to protect their relationships with family, friends and employers.

Someone commented to me after the film, “That’s you. You’re a Shadow Mormon.”

Yes, I’m a Shadow Mormon. Maybe that’s why this film hit me so hard. I haven’t believed in over 20 years – most of my adult life. Yet, during that time I’ve paid my tithing, gone to the temple, served in bishoprics and high councils and done all the things that were expected of me. Why? Because I am tied to the church by family and community.

The story of “Grace” (not her real name) resonated with me because it was so similar to mine. Her pain, and anger, were born of all the energy she has given to a religion that she doesn’t believe in. Finding out that the Church was not true was like a death experience for her. Like me, she tried following the Church’s teachings to fast, pray, read the scriptures and yet never felt she received the “burning in her bosom” that is promised in the scriptures.

What of the families and communities of these people? What are their stories, their experiences with loved ones who go through a process of losing belief and leaving the church. Only one person who was a family or friend agreed to be interviewed for the film. The believing husband that was interviewed told how he still loved his wife, even though she has left the church. What about the others? Are they embarrassed to say that the Church was more important than their relationship with the person who left?

The saddest stories, to me, were of divorce caused by one spouse believing and the other not believing. Michelle (another woman interviewed in the film) said her heart was broken that her husband would choose the Church over her. He told their marriage therapist that if she had not been Mormon he never would have married her. “There was more to me than being a Mormon,” she said. “And I thought that there was more to him.”

The dictionary defines empathy as “the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.” We could all use a little more empathy for those around us. I have had several people tell me, “I can’t imagine how a person could leave the church.” Either they need a better imagination or they need more empathy. Maybe they just need to see this film.

One of the questions at the screening–one that Lavery could not answer–was, “How do we get the right people to see this film?” Sadly, many members of the church would not even consider it. (It screened in Salt Lake City in October and got almost no media coverage.) The film does not try to de-convert anyone or disparage the doctrine of the church. It doesn’t assert that someone is right because he or she believes, or that someone else is right because he or she leaves the church. This film is about accepting people regardless of what they believe, and about how we treat those who believe differently than we do. I wish every member of the church could see this film.

Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICbylWK-i2Q&NR=1

Firstly, I can understand other religions who live in my community who might be frustrated at the effort and money that is spent of events during the Christmas season, that is not directed into events that would help their own religious festivals.

Secondly, I sense that if Christians want their festivals to remain important then we need to ensure that they are important by our practising them rather than using (or assuming) some sort of cultural supremacy simply because we happen to be the dominant religious culture in a country.

Thirdly, no one else can determine whether I worship Christmas and the extent to which I feel the spirit of Christ.  Therefore although I think having that focus at Christmas time is a good thing I should not let the fact that other people do not believe become the major focus of my worship.  I am sure people who celebrate any of the Islamic festivals do not concern themselves with my benign neglect of their religious festival so why should I use mine against them.

Fourthly, no one can stop me from calling it Christmas, if I so choose.  I don’t care what anyone else calls.  If they want to change the legal name so that it does not alienate other religious denominations then I can’t see an issue with that.

This just seems a mis-directed way to focus on Christmas at a time of year when Christians should be at their most tolerating, inclusive and forgiving.

What do you think?

Should we legally protect Christmas or should we emphasise celebrating it ourselves and not be concerned about what others do?

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

This photograph was taken by Sebastiao Salgado at a gold mine in Brazil.  I first saw it in a room at the University I attend.  As an idealistic and aspiring academic I felt moved by the raw power of the worker as he resisted the guard.  Ever since then I have had a copy of this picture in my study areas.  It reminds me that my life is not just about doing good, but that I have a moral duty to alleviate as much suffering in this world as I can.  It reminds me that sometimes I need to resist those in power to protect the weak.  I believe that is part of the heritage that Christ has given us.

Egon Friedell

In this regard I was recently provoked to thought by something Egon Friedell has said about the Christian tradition.  I had never heard of Egon Friedell, until reading a book by Clive James entitled ‘Cultural Amnesia’ (which I whole-heartedly recommend), but I think I really like him.  James describes him as the ‘polymath’s polymath’.  Yet, Friedell was not merely a book-worm but was also one of the most famous cabaret artist’s of his day in a city (Vienna) full of performers.  Before discussing his ideas I wanted to share one tid-bit from his life which was (oddly) inspiring for me:

‘On the day of the AnschluB in 1938, Friedell saw the storm troopers marching down the street, on their way to the building in which he had his apartment full of books.  He was only a few floors up but it was high enough to do the job.  On his way out of the window he called a warning, in case his falling body hit an innocent passer-by.’

His magnum opus ‘Cultural History of the Modern Age’ contains this line: ‘Mankind in the Christian Era possesses one huge advantage over the ancients: a bad conscience’.  Now it seems that neither James nor Friedell were Christians but they recognised something that the world had been given because of Christianity.  In James’ words, ‘When Friedell talked about a bad conscience, he meant the mind that was capable of seeing that might and right were not the same thing’.

One challenge with making this distinction is discerning it amidst the normalising power of culture.  Seeing oppression and pain inflicted by those in power is difficult when those causing such situations are the same people we revere or respect; it is harder still is to resist it.  ‘Most men’ James notes ‘bend with the breeze: which is to say, they go with the prevailing power.  But a few do not.  With or without Christ’s help, they grow a bad conscience.  Thank God for that.’

Yet, what haunts me more is that, in the words Albert Camus, ‘I [find] that there [are] sweet dreams of oppression within me’.  I really believe that ’it is the nature and disposition of almost all men… to exercise unrighteous dominion’ (D&C 121:39); and this includes me.  Friedell’s ‘bad conscience’ must work inward as much as it flows outward; I must check myself against the tendencies that I have to use any ‘perceived’ authority I might have to justify my own prejudices.  James’ oppressive breeze blows both from within and from without.  

The last century saw many idealistic and bright people bend with that breeze, and yet, within the Christian heritage is the ‘bad conscience’, which urges us to resist oppressive behaviour, even from ourselves.  I wonder whether I have been true to my tradition.  I wonder whether I have stood up for the down-trodden and the out-cast. I wonder whether my respect for authority has led me to turn a blind-eye to unrighteous dominion (wherever that is found).  I hope I can be rigid in one of the few senses I see as important; that I will never concede to view that power leads inevitably to truth.

This is going to be a vastly simplified version of events, as I understand them:

The FLDS are a group of people with Mormon restorationist roots who believe in principles espoused early in the history of our movement, such as plural marriage and consecration.  They formed a community with its base in Colorado City, on the Utah/Arizona border in the 1930s.  Their desire to live the Law of Consecration resulted in what became known as the United Effort Plan (UEP), which started as a subsidiary organization of the FLDS church.  Properties and businesses were owned by the UEP and members received trusts to live on and develop.

In 2005, The Attorney General of Utah filed a lawsuit and seized the holdings of the UEP in the FLDS communities of Hildale, Utah; Colorado City, Ariz.; and Bountiful, British Columbia in Canada. It was alleged that Warren Jeffs and other FLDS leaders had mismanaged it, including defaulting on a series of civil lawsuits.  An accountant, Bruce Wisan, was appointed to act as special fiduciary of the trust, with its estimated $100 million in assets.

First of all, I don’t understand the legal process that could seize control of this arrangement when the majority of its members wish to continue their involvement in the United Order.  Judge Denise P. Lindberg has stated in a recent ruling that because the trust is being used illegally, “to promote polygamy,” that distributing the land to the FLDS church is invalid and violates basic trust law.  Fundamentalist supporters make this argument:

“If a trust is declared invalid, shouldn’t it simply be dissolved and the assets revert back to original ownership (or as close to it as possible)? Does the state or any court have the power to absorb private trust assets or give them to other people, based on the fact that the state and/or court do not approve of the beliefs and or practices of the organizers or beneficiaries of said trust?”

Second, Wisan appears very hostile to the aims of the UEP.  Why would this Mormon Stake President be given control over how to manage the assets of several entire communities of people?  It’s been very, very disturbing to read reports of how the trust has been handled since he has become involved.    Perhaps I’m missing something, but of their own free will these people have legally signed their property over to their church.  Now, measures such as the sale of property set aside for a temple, and reforms designed to violate the rights of the FLDS to live their religion are being enacted.  Little notice is being taken of the desires of those who have entered into the trust and whose financial, emotional, and spiritual interests are at stake.

In Lindberg’s ruling, FLDS members and church representatives Willie Jessop, Dan Johnson, Merlin Jessop, Lyle Jeffs and James Oler were prevented from any input in the case involving the United Effort Plan (UEP) Trust.

“It is black letter law that potential beneficiaries of charitable trusts have no right to make claims upon such trusts,” she wrote. “Because the UEP Trust is a charitable trust, the only individuals with legally cognizable interests are the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General as representatives of the community, and the court-designated special fiduciary.”

In this country, we don’t take away an individual’s legal rights because he has had a consensual sexual relationship with a person other than his wife.  If this person prefers to call his relationship a marriage, and connects it with his religious practice, why is there suddenly a concerted effort to deprive him of his rights?

“Principle Voices,” a support group for those involved in fundamentalist Mormon lifestyles, has voiced their opposition to

1) any ruling that deprives polygamists of the right to organize or manage a trust with their own assets.

2) any ruling that declares a trust formed by polygamists as “promoting illegal activities”, “invalid”, un-Constitutional, or “illegal”, simply because the organizers embrace plural marriage.

3) any ruling that deprives the FLDS (or any other polygamists) of the right to access their own assets or their right to self-governance. (By extension, substitute the name of any other group such as the Kingstons or the AUB, etc., in place of FLDS; we oppose any ruling or government action that would deprive any of those communities of their rights.)

4) any ruling or government action that establishes an inequity in the law that distinguishes, and diminishes, the rights of polygamists from the rights of other American citizens.

A group of people sympathetic to these points has gathered to stage a peaceful protest today (Wednesday, July 29), outside the Matheson courthouse in support of these concerns.  Here the court is considering the sale of the several hundred acres of land known as Berry Knoll which has been prophesied as the future site of their temple.   Do you disagree with their points?  Do you feel that the rulings being contemplated in the case of the UEP constitute an inequity in the law?  Do you believe, as I do, that Mormons and other citizens should have an interest in the outcome of these proceedings?

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

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

How far then does forgiveness go?

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

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

I’ve always enjoyed books about world religions, especially the obscure and forgotten, but I was expecting something rather bland, or apologetic, or dismissive.  I was pleasantly surprised.  This one was actually very unbiased, concise, and interesting.  It didn’t break any new ground, necessarily, except that it offered interesting comparisons and contrasts with other major world religions.

I found that book packed in an anonymous box last week and decided to give it another read.  As I read about Guru Nanak I was struck by one tiny thing: how comparatively little we really know about him or his life.  How can anyone believe in a prophet whose life we can’t relentlessly scrutinize?

I’m not going to go into detail about his life here.  A quick appeal to Wikipedia will take care of the information you need to get started, I guess, but let me get to the thrust of this post.  How do we test the fruits of a prophet we know so little about?  As I read, my mind went over the prophet I feel I know so well, Joseph Smith, and I was impressed by how we scrutinize his life for tiny details.  Every scrap of information about his life has been scoured by historians, theologians, apologists, and lay-people, for clues as to whether he is a true prophet, and yet no-one to date has really been able to come to a consensus.  Was he a charlatan?  A saint?  A prophet?  A nut?

Right around the time of Christopher Columbus, northern India was embroiled, as it is now, in a theological struggle between Hindu and Muslim.  To be fair, Guru Nanak does have a few interesting sources about his life (all written after his death), but for the most part, we know little about him compared to Joseph Smith.  The people he lived with in the north of India spent their entire lives agonizing and struggling over their age-old question: which religion is right, Hinduism or Islam?  No doubt many people prayed mightily towards Heaven asking for divine guidance.  Is Hinduism worth dying for?  Was Mohamed really a true prophet?  That struggle was personified in Guru Nanak, whose simple initial revelation, “There is neither Hindu nor Muslim,” must have jarred most of his listeners.  “Neither Hindu nor Muslim?” they must have asked themselves.  “What else is there?”

I felt moved with immense compassion as I read about this struggle, especially in light of the invasion of India by the Moguls.  Here was a whole civilization, turned over by wars and religious strife, foreign to Americans, who lived and died struggling with the great questions of the soul, and here was a prophet among them, Guru Nanak, who offered peace, and eschewed outward ordinances in favor of clean living and always remembering God in your heart.

How can I possibly determine whether Guru Nanak is a true prophet if I have so little information about him?  Where are all the documents?  Stanford hasn’t done any word imprint studies on his writings, his mother never wrote a Biography of his life.  There are definitely no Sikhs here in Lexington repeatedly bearing testimony to me, “I know that Guru Nanak was a true prophet.”  Not to say there isn’t any information about him (and, to be fair, there are some Sikhs here in Lexington, if you seek them out, pun intended) but it seems quite lean compared to what we have about Joseph Smith.

Let us swing back a few thousand years and move a few hundred miles to the West to Iran, where we find the cradle of  another world religion, that of Zoroastrianism.  One could easily argue that Zoroastrianism is the grandfather of all monotheistic faiths.  They have been around for thousands of years, though their numbers have dwindled in the last couple centuries.  Want to approach Zoroastrianism objectively, and test the fruits of Zoroaster (Zarathustra)?  What do we know about him?  Well, a quick survey of historians will reveal that he probably lived sometime between 6000 BC and 100 BC.  That’s right, we can nail down his life to a 5900-year period.  Recently, the number has settled right around 1100 to 1000 BC, but how on God’s Green Earth are we supposed to find out if Zoroaster was a true prophet if we can’t even agree on the millennium in which he lived?

And where did Zoroaster live in this period of time?  I’ll quote Wikipedia this time:

Yasna 9 & 17 cite the Ditya River in Airyanem Vaējah (Middle Persian Ērān Wēj) as Zoroaster’s home and the scene of his first appearance. Nowhere in the Avesta (both Old and Younger portions) is there a mention of the Achaemenids or of any West Iranian tribes such as the Medes, Persians, or even Parthians.

However, in Yasna 59.18, the zaraθuštrotema, or supreme head of the Zoroastrian priesthood, is said to reside in ‘Ragha’. In the ninth to twelfth century Middle Persian texts of Zoroastrian tradition, this ‘Ragha’ – along with many other places – appear as locations in Western Iran. While Medea does not figure at all in the Avesta (the westernmost location noted in scripture is Arachosia), the Būndahišn, or “Primordial Creation,” (20.32 and 24.15) puts Ragha in Medea (medieval Rai). However, in Avestan, Ragha is simply a toponym meaning “plain, hillside.”

Apart from these indications in Middle Persian sources which are open to interpretations, there are a number of other sources. The Greek and Latin sources are divided on the birth place of Zarathustra. There are many Greek accounts of Zarathustra, referred usually as Persian or Perso-Median Zoroaster. Moreover they have the suggestion that there has been more than one Zoroaster. On the other hand in post-Islamic sources Shahrastani (1086-1153) an Iranian writer originally from Shahristān, present-day Turkmenistan, proposed that Zoroaster’s father was from Atropatene (also in Medea) and his mother was from Rai. Coming from a reputed scholar of religions, this was a serious blow for the various regions who all claimed that Zoroaster originated from their homelands, some of which then decided that Zoroaster must then have then been buried in their regions or composed his Gathas there or preached there. Also Arabic sources of the same period and the same region of historical Persia consider Azerbaijan as the birth place of Zarathustra.

By the late twentieth century the consensus among some scholars had settled on an origin in Eastern Iran and/or Central Asia (to include present-day Afghanistan): Gnoli proposed Sistan (though in a much wider scope than the present-day province) as the homeland of Zoroastrianism; Frye voted for Bactria and Chorasmia; Khlopin suggests the Tedzen Delta in present-day Turkmenistan. Sarianidi considered the BMAC region as “the native land of the Zoroastrians and, probably, of Zoroaster himself.” Boyce includes the steppes of the former Soviet republics. The medieval “from Media” hypothesis is no longer taken seriously, and Zaehner has even suggested that this was a Magi-mediated issue to garner legitimacy, but this has been likewise rejected by Gershevitch and others.

So we know where he lived, give or take a thousand miles, and we know what time period, give or take a few thousand years.  And by the way, there may have been more than one Zoroaster.

Again I ask, how do we know a true prophet?  The Bible says a few things, but let’s focus on one:

Matthew 7:15-20

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth devil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

So my question is, how do we test the fruits of these prophets? Not only these prophets, but anyone who has claimed revelation in the past.  What about Mani, who led the people now known as Manicheans, who expanded upon what he saw as truths in Christianity and Zoroastrianism? What of Confucius, whose followers led thousands in Ancient China (all bureaucrats in the government were well-versed in Confucian texts). Do we know as much about Mo Tzu, whose teachings were seen as a real competitor to Confucianism early in its history, as we do about Sidney Rigdon or John Taylor or Thomas S. Monson?

A few possibilities come immediately to mind, some conclusions that easily could be made by the modern reader.

1. We don’t need to test their fruits. Zoroaster was a prophet who lived thousands of years ago, to a people who lived thousands of years ago. These people don’t pertain to us. We know the truth, and we can just forget about these guys.  Besides, if they were so right, where are they now?

Forgive me, but doesn’t this seem like an arrogant conclusion? To dismiss an honest, sincere group of people because of distance or difference seems quite wrong, at least to my heart, especially in the case of Zoroaster, whose religion has endured longer than any other monotheistic religion, and that historians even date to before Judaism (many historians believe that it was actually the Babylonian exile, and the Jews’ exposure to Zoroastrian thought, that really ironed out their concepts of Heaven and Hell, God and the Devil, etc.).  If time is any indication of truth, it’s arguably on their side, not ours.

2. We can automatically dismiss anyone who didn’t teach about Christ.

Fair enough, if you believe Christ really was the Son of God, which I do, for the record. However, how many of Basava’s followers knew about Christ or His teachings? Guru Nanak’s world was divided into Hindus and Muslims, and the wars between them. Christ, to them, was some obscure prophet, mentioned in the Qur’an, or maybe a Bodhisattva, but not really someone whom the average person knew about. Furthermore, is it useless for a prophet to teach about loving one another in a land where Christ’s name is not mentioned? Is a prophet not “true” if he teaches that we should cease our murders and contentions and try our best to live a holy, charitable life?

3. We can dismiss them because we don’t have any useful information about their lives, like we do about Joseph Smith. We simply can’t test their fruits, and thus we can see that God doesn’t want us to know about them. If God wanted us to know about them, information about them would have fallen into our (or Joseph Smith’s) hands.

Pleading ignorance?  Really? “We don’t need to know something because we don’t know something.” This may be precisely the reason why most people in the world don’t know who Jesus Christ really is. “If God wanted me, here in Urumqi (or Jakarta or Chongking or Tokyo or anywhere else not predominantly Christian), to know about Jesus Christ, God would have sent that information here, but He hasn’t.”

4. We can dismiss any religion whose followers are a tiny group compared to the whole. For instance, why study the teachings of Alevi Muslims if they are such a minority in the world, even amongst the Muslim world?

For the record, there are probably more Alevi Muslims in the world as there are Latter-day Saints, and the Alevi are a tiny minority compared to the Muslim World as a whole. Secondly, when has truth been determined by the majority? And what was the result?

5. The particulars of a prophet’s life aren’t important, what matters is the fruits we see in the followers.

Take quantum mechanics as some sort of analogy here.  By the 1800s, Newtonian Physics had pretty much permeated all of the scientific community.  Edmund Halley’s orbital prediction of what is now called Halley’s Comet was regarded as an ultimate triumph of Newtonian Physics, and the philosophers finally concluded that if one could know the starting positions of all the atoms and matter in the Universe, one could calculate all of history over billions of years.  However, when we really started to dissect the atom, Newton’s ideas broke down on the quantum level.  We discovered entanglement and particle spin and all sorts of new, amazing, sometimes counter-intuitive facts about how things work on a tiny scale.  Yet, to this day, we haven’t seemed to reconcile Quantum Mechanics with the Universe on a large scale, and the search for a Unified Theory is one of the most interesting searches in physics.

So the resulting Universe we see has emergent properties that seem (we’re still working on this) different than the properties on the Quantum level. Are prophets the same way? Does the whole of a religion have emergent properties that aren’t explained by the life of a single person who founded it? Can we test the “truth” of a religion by these emergent fruits, ignoring what the prophet did?

This seems a bit more plausible, considering there are so many prophets we don’t have information about. Except, is that really what we’re taught in the Church? Furthermore, what if the religion died out many years ago, so we can’t necessarily see the fruits of it now?

6. We can test a prophet by the book they brought forth. If we ask if the book is true, then we can know if the prophet is true. No book? Then see #3.

Does that mean that if you can’t read, then you’ll never know? Does that mean all the prophets in history who didn’t have a book are not true? Literacy is truth, and illiteracy is damnation? What about the Christians in the Middle Ages who didn’t have access to the Bible because the Bible was restricted to the clergy? Were they doomed, never having a true testimony?

7. Those prophets taught some truth, we know that from Latter-day revelation. Therefore, we can just accept that they taught some truths, but reading about them, knowing about them, or studying their teachings is unnecessary. All truth is contained in this Church.

This is pretty much what our Church teaches us, right? Certain prophets had access to the Light of Christ at certain times in history, and did much good, but we really needn’t concern ourselves with the particulars. I can’t help but thinking this is still being overly dismissive of other teachings, other cultures, and other people. Shouldn’t we search diligently for truth wherever it can be found? Joseph Smith seemed to snatch up truth wherever he saw it, whether it be in the rituals of the Masons or papyri he thought belonged to Abraham. This has led me to #8, which is closest to what I consider to be the truth.

8. The truth is complicated.

The older I get, the closer #8 seems to reality.  However, I thank God that I’m in a religion right now that can tie the Human Family together in a way that accepts and appreciates truths everywhere and anywhen.  In the darkest times at night, and on Sundays when I listen to what’s taught from the pulpit, and when I travel and see people of all different colors and faiths and nationalities, and when I read history books full of brave men and women who sacrificed their lives for their faith, even faiths much different than my own, I don’t have to accept on blind faith the conclusion that the majority of my family (the Human Race) is damned for Eternity for not knowing the name of Christ.  There isn’t a privileged time or place for personal salvation.

And this is very comforting to me.

President Barack Obama met with President Monson on Monday in the Oval Office, thanking  President Monson for a thorough history of the first family.

President  Monson presented Obama with details of his family’s genealogy during their first face-to-face meeting. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat who is Mormon, helped arrange the meeting and joined it.

“I’m grateful for the genealogical records that they brought with them and am looking forward to reading through the materials with my daughters,” Obama said in a statement after the meeting. “It’s something our family will treasure for years to come.”

Mormon leaders traditionally meet with new presidents and share with them records from the Salt Lake City-based church’s extensive genealogical records.

“President Obama’s heritage is rich with examples of leadership, sacrifice and service,” Monson said in a statement. “We were very pleased to research his family history and are honored to present it to him today.”

The five leather-bound books detail Obama’s family history for several generations. Parts of that history were already known, such as his ties to former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney. The two are eighth cousins.

Obama is a descendent of Mareen Duvall. The French Huguenot’s son married the granddaughter of a Richard Cheney, who arrived in Maryland in the late 1650s from England.

Thoughts Questions?

Notes

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_of_Barack_Obama

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/20/AR2009072002068.html

Please refrain from turning this into an argument about the nature or morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  This is a poll about a legal decision, and comments should be about the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is/isn’t this a good idea?

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

Surely, you have seen some of these folks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that this comes with a few caveats:

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

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

My home teacher (who is very cool) came by yesterday to drop off some starter cables for my car and as one does in that short interlude we discussed the celestial kingdom and being Gods after this life. He believed that those who don’t make it to the highest kingdom in the Celestial Kingdom won’t have any sexual relationships and if you don’t have sexual relationships their will be no need for sexual organs.

Its interesting talking about controversial stuff but I was finding this unnerving!!

Eunuch
1: a castrated man placed in charge of a harem or employed as a chamberlain in a palace
2: a man or boy deprived of the testes or external genitals
3: one that lacks virility or power <political eunuchs>

In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection. (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

Joseph Smith said that even the telestial Kingdom was thousands of times better than this world and if we had a glimpse of it we would kill ourselves now to get there. I think many of us now would disagree with Joseph Smith Jr in light of reading the more current views of Joseph Fielding Smith.

In the family proclamation we learn that Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. But the family proclamation is not kingdom specific to whether will still have our male or female gender if we don’t make it to the highest kingdom of the Celestial Kingdom.

I thought I was being unique (pun) in this post but as I have researched,being a so called  EUNUCH is a phrase used in the Bloggernacle since 2006 its called  TK SMOOTHIE

It has two definitions

1. The logical conclusion for JFS, then, was to say that the people in the TK would not have male or female genitalia.
2. If a doctrine of the church seems like it has been created in order to “fix” or explain another, it might be a TK Smoothie. The TK Smoothie is eponymous for all doctrines that are probably bogus but exist in order to clarify some other doctrine or speculation.

Bishop Young Spanish Fork 401st Ward

In Mormonism, we have an expanded picture of life that extends before this mortal life and then on into the eternities. However, when you really dig into this, it turns out that we have very few details on what to expect after this life, and the details we do have come mostly from talks given almost 175 years ago. And to say that our expectations of ‘Heaven,’ have changed quite a bit since then is a gross understatement.

Despite all the speculation, one detail that we know for sure: unless you make it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, there will be no eternal sex. Basically, you’d be turned into a Telestial/Terrestrial Kingdom Smoothie (TK Smoothie). I like to imagine these lesser-Kingdoms as the Barbie & Ken Kingdoms. Everyone walking around looking beautiful and perfect for eternity, but having a smooth under-carriage like Barbie or Ken.

Parley P. Pratt

The object of the union of the sexes is the propagation of their species, or procreation; also for mutual affection, and the cultivation of those eternal principles of never ending charity and benevolence, which are inspired by the Eternal Spirit; also for mutual comfort and assistance in this world of toil and sorrow, and for mutual duties toward their offspring. Key to the Science of Theology, Ch.17, p.169

I would like to believe as Parley P Pratt describes that this mutual affection will not only be for this life but carried through to all the kingdoms after this life to all of our Brothers and Sisters who have lived on this earth.

Questions

1. If you make it to the Celestial Kingdom how would you feel when you visit a Parent, Grandparent, Brother, Sister, Son or Daughter in the Terrestrial Kingdom with out any Gender?
2. Do you believe Joseph Fielding Smith is correct?
3. Is there any current doctrine that overrides his beliefs?
4. If JFS doctrine is correct the word Brother and Sister takes on a whole different meaning in the Terrestrial and Telestial Kingdom?
5. Is it silly doctrine we should jettison?
6. If it is still true do you think if we emphasised it more it might motivate members to push harder for the Celestial Kingdom?
7. Doctrines of Salvation is most of it safe doctrine we can use in our talks and lessons ?  Is some of it suspect and if it is how do we know what that is? Do you think of it as interesting reading not really fiction but not really solid doctrinally? How would you describe it?

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

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

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

Discuss.

I 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.

In corporate America, misconduct is often characterized as a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.  Whistle-blower protection is a serious concern as others inside an organization tend to “shoot the messenger” when it comes to whistle-blowers.  Major corporations are wise to provide options and multiple complaint mechanisms to handle internal complaints.  I work for one such organization.  There are many vehicles to handle internal complaints:  employee surveys, human resources groups (several different kinds), an ombuds office, online employee discussion forums that allow anonymous participation, and a very large compliance and legal department to proactively police regulatory issues.

In my experience, the vast majority of what gets reported as “misconduct” is really something else, such as:

• a complainant with hurt feelings
• the result of poor relationship or communication skills (either on the part of the complainant or a direct leader or some other third party); in some cases, this alleged misconduct is actual misconduct, but not always.
• a misunderstanding of what the laws and regulations are or what the supposed “misconduct” activity entailed
• an act of vengeance (e.g. the complainant hopes to exact revenge on another employee or leader using the complaint vehicle as a weapon)

That is not always the case, of course, which is why it’s worth it to sift through hundreds of complaints to find the one that is a real issue for the company and that requires intervention.  To the complainant, the complaint is very serious and needs to be resolved to their satisfaction.  In reality, it’s nearly impossible to separate the complaint from the complainant.  The more neutral the complainant, the more valuable the complaint.  Some of these factors make the complainant seem less neutral:

• The complainant wants something of personal benefit as a result of the complaint.
• The complainant is vengeful toward individuals they accuse of wrong-doing or there is a known personality conflict between them and an accused party.
• The complainant has a history of making complaints.
• If they no longer have any ties to the organization (an ex-insider), that complaint might also seem suspect to insiders, regardless of how neutrally the complaint is phrased.

So, when it comes to complaints within the organization of the church, how do we do?  Here are some areas where I think we do well:

• Complaints are handled at the lowest level possible.
• Complaints are generally handled in confidence (obviously, there are individuals who have blown this, but IME, local leaders tend to take confidentiality to extremes).
• There is a focus on accountability (LDS scriptures actually instruct members to handle personal conflicts between them and the other party).
• Actual misconduct complaints (e.g. fraud, legal, etc.) are generally taken very seriously and actions to remedy are easy to handle swiftly due to the lay clergy aspect of the church.

Where do we sometimes fall down?

• Females alleging sexual misconduct may find the process extra difficult due to the lack of female representation in church courts.  A female who already feels violated may have a difficult time in addressing an all-male leadership with painful details that are necessary to assess the situation.
• There is very little effective access to top levels of the organization.  This is really only an issue if the complaint is about local leadership or if the complaint has organizational implications.  We should bear in mind that this is how the Catholic church got into trouble over the priest molestation scandals–by pushing too much to local levels to handle and not realizing they had an institutional problem before it was too late.
• Organizations with deep pockets are often the target of spurious law suits which makes identifying the serious cases more difficult.
• Disclosures about financial and legal activities are either vague or considered confidential.  But again, this is often the case in a corporation as well.  While financial disclosure of a publicly-traded company is more open, airing dirty laundry over minor litigations is not.
• Local leaders may lack the skill to assess and deal with issues and may hold complainants at bay to cover their ineptitude.  They may use unrighteous dominion to punish the complainant.  And there is some open question about the church’s culpability when an untrained lay clergy makes a local error in judgment.
• Individuals feel guilty for complaining in a religious structure.  This is true of all churches, but added to it is our lay clergy.  It’s harder to complain about an unpaid volunteer.
• Whistle-blowers may not be taken seriously if they are not considered neutral or are frequent complainers.  But this is true in all human organizations, and is the basis for the age-old story The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  There’s sometimes a reason the messenger gets shot.

So, what do you think?  Do we do a good job dealing with complaints or not?  Do we do a better job with more severe complaints or minor issues?  What should we do to improve how we handle complaints or is the system working just fine?  Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. 

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Please take the time to read the entire article, since it provides their justification for this proposal – and because I think it is very well written, regardless of agreement or disagreement with particular points in it.

My question is very simple:

Would this compromise work – for both “sides” of the issue?  Could you personally accept it?  Do you think those with whom you disagree would be able to accept it?  Why or why not?  Which group would have a harder time accepting it – and why?

If you think this would not work, is there a different compromise that you think would work?

The article pointed to some flawed gems of conventional wisdom:

• Kids cement marital happiness.  Definitely not always true.  (see below)
• Empty nesters feel bereft and abandoned.  You wish!  Now that you’re gone, they can get down to doing all the stuff they’ve been putting off for 20 years:  travelling, reading, rock climbing, key parties, whatever.
• There was more quality family time back in the “good old days.”  Not at all.  Studies show that parents spend much more time with kids than they used to spend back when housework took over twice as long.  Even in homes where both parents work, kids often get more quality time with BOTH parents than those of previous generations.  Debunked!

So, how are these little rugrats destroying marriages, at least in today’s environment, and are Mormons more prone to these problems due to our focus on families?  According to the article:

1. Having kids when you either don’t want them or are ambivalent about them can be disastrous for a marriage.  Do people succumb to pressure to have kids when they don’t want them? 
2. Having kids to solidify a rocky marriage (seriously, do people still do this?) is likely to backfire (to which I say “duh!”).  Do people honestly think it will all work out if they just have kids?
3. Slipping into “traditional” roles as anything other than a matter of choice leads to resentment from both spouses and rocky marriages.  Do people get sucked into traditional roles against their choice?
4. Spending too much time helicoptering over your kids and not enough time together as a couple or in adults-only time weakens marriages.  Are we so focused on kids that we forget adult time?

It’s no secret the church advocates traditional roles, is pro-procreation (when will the earth be plenished already?), and encourages family time.  Do Mormon couples experience these 4 pitfalls more frequently as a result, about the same, or less than others?  Are these issues we should be concerned about?  Do you know people for whom these issues have cause major marital strife?  If there is pressure that causes people to act outside their best interests, from whence does that pressure come, and how should it be dealt with.  My view is there are 3 kinds of pressure:

• External.  This is pressure from society, church, or family (other than spouse) to do what they want you to do or think is best for you.  It is best taken with a grain of salt if it conflicts with either of the next two.
• Intra-Marriage.  This is pressure from your spouse to do what s/he desires OR possibly what s/he thinks is best for you.  This is why people need to go into a marriage with their eyes wide open and full disclosure on things like kids & careers.  But you have to do what you both can to accomodate and understand one another and arrive at a common place.
• Internal.  These are your feelings and desires and even your expectations of yourself and others.  It could be biological clock stuff, perfectionism, or your life’s goals and dreams.  You have to be true to yourself and to learn to love yourself and others, even when your desires may differ.  This is stuff you have to work through alone or in prayer as well as with your spouse, but ultimately, it’s up to you.

That’s my way of looking at things, anyway.  But yours may differ.  Discuss.

*If you’ve never heard of “Zero Population” before, that’s because the last time that term was used was before Donny Osmond had armpit hair.

The best Biblical statements regarding swearing and cursing include the following:

“Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve him, and shalt swear by his name.” (Deut. 6:13)

“But I say unto you, Swear not at all;” (Matthew 5:34)

“And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:17)

“His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and fraud: under his tongue is mischief and vanity.” (Psalms 10:7)

“Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.” (James 3:9)

There are dozens of other references to swearing and cursing, and all of them deal with swearing as a way of making a solemn promise (including taking the Lord’s name in vain) and cursing as pronouncing punishment. I chose the verses quoted above because they provide an interesting insight into the way that the original, scriptural meaning of these words has mutated radically since the initial pronouncements – coming to mean something now that simply was not included or intended in the scriptural admonitions.

It is interesting that neither term (”swear” or “curse”) is defined in the Bible Dictionary. I take this as a sign that those who compiled this resource didn’t feel it was necessary to do so – that the scriptural usage was so consistent and obvious that no further commentary was necessary. Given that situation, the following definitions come straight from the dictionary:

“to swear” = “to bind oneself by oath.” (There are 10 definitions; 9 fit this general meaning.)

“to swear” = “to use profane oaths or language” (This is the only exception to the general rule.

“to curse” = “to express a wish that misfortune, evil, doom, etc., befall a person, group, etc. – to invoke a formula or charm intended to cause such misfortune to another.” (again, the majority of definitions)

“to curse” = “to use a profane oath or curse word; to swear at” (one definition)

It is interesting and instructive to note that the second definitions (profane language and profane oaths) do NOT appear in our scriptures. Every instance of “swearing” and “cursing” throughout our canon involves the first definitions. What does this mean?

First, it is apparent that “swearing” means making a solemn oath or promise. (”I swear it shall be done.” - EVERY post can be improved by adding a quote from TPB.) In the OT, as a token of their status as The Chosen People, Israel was allowed (even encouraged) to make these sacred promises in the name of God – to swear by His name. However, one of the aspects of the Law of Moses that was fulfilled by Jesus was this practice. In its place, Jesus commanded to “swear not at all”.

Obviously, He did not command that we stop making solemn promises, since His new admonition was the following:

“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5:37)

By ending the Old Testament practice of swearing by God, and by shifting the responsibility to us – as individuals – to restrict our promises to “Yea, yea; Nay, nay”, He put the responsibility for keeping those promises squarely on us – as individuals. There no longer was the excuse that, “God just didn’t do it;” it was replaced by the only possible statement, “I just didn’t do it.” I see this move as one more example of the move from institutional responsibility to personal responsibility. Jesus said, essentially, “It’s up to you, so don’t even imply that it was someone else’s decision or is someone else’s responsibility.”

So, how did we get from the original pronouncements of Jesus – the great societal paradigm shift – to where we are now?

The Puritan and Victorian societies of the past few hundred years simply took this basic shift and rejected it – returning to the old Law of Moses mentality and expanding the meaning of “swear” and “curse” even beyond where it had been anciently. Just as the ancient Jewish leaders expanded the original commandments by adding many prohibitions not included in the original law (“hedging about the law”), modern Christians added layers of meaning to these ancient prohibitions and turned them into restrictions they never were intended to be.

Now, in our society, people have returned to “swearing by some sacred being or object”, but they also have created a completely new definition / category of swearing. Now, it includes “using unacceptable words” – words defined by the educated elite to distinguish those who are cultured and those who are not. They have changed the original meaning from “making promises for God” to “saying words that show you are more ignorant than us“. That is a radical and divisive change, and it is mentioned repeatedly by LDS members and those elsewhere all the time.

These same people have taken “cursing” from a statement of malicious intent and desire to cause harm to the same generic “saying bad words” – also a radical and prideful change.  Also, the following is important:

“Profane” means “characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious”. That is the key issue, imo – that our society has confused and conflated “vulgar” with “profane”. There are lots of words that have no religious meaning or connotation whatsoever – that are not “profane” in any way, shape or form – that, nonetheless, have come to be seen as “profane” (as somehow irreligious and offensive to God).

***For those of you who do not want to read specific examples, stop reading now and go straight to the comments.***

***I mean it. The rest of this post includes some words that some might find offensive. I do not use any of the examples that I think would cause the most severe reaction, but I spell out completely those I do use.***

Here are just a few examples, using the most tame words I feel comfortable using here:

“Hell” is a proper noun that designates a location and/or condition. It is used in our scriptures hundreds of times, at least. It is sung in our hymns of worship. When used as a proper noun (”come hell or high water”), and not within a true curse (“Go to Hell.”) or meaningless addition (“Oh, hell!”), there is absolutely nothing bad or wrong with the word itself. Yet, “hell” is forbidden by many people as a “swear word”.

**LITTLE KNOWN ENGLISH LESSON ALERT**:

“Damn” is a noun meaning “something of little value”. A good example of this is, “That isn’t worth a damn,” – meaning it is worthless. On the other hand, “to damn” means to enact a curse – to cause someone to become of no worth, figuratively casting someone to Hell (the place where they are of no worth). Therefore, “Damn you,” is exactly what is forbidden in scriptures, for two reasons:

1) It incorrectly places the one who “curses” another in the place of God, the only one who can be the Judge and validly make such a pronouncement; and
2) it invokes that status in opposition to Jesus’ command to “swear not at all” – since invoking such a curse is, in effect, stating one’s authority to “promise in the name of God” that it will happen.

However, to use the word “damn” (even as a verb) is not proscribed in our canonized scriuptures – as in, “God damns those who fight him,” or “I don’t want my efforts at work to be damned.”

There are some examples that never were part of religion, but only came to be seen that way as a result of the elitist division I mentioned earlier. “Bastard” simply means child born out of wedlock, so “bastardize” meant to make illegitimate or corrupt. “Bitch” means female dog – no worse or better in its original meaning than “ewe” or “doe” (or ram or steed) or any other name for an animal. It was the application of the word to “those who act like a female dog” (originally “bitching and whining”) that pushed it into the category of unacceptable “swear words”.  “Shit” simply means “feces” – and, in its extended meaning, anything else that is disgusting and/or worthless.  It was the fact that such words were employed almost exclusively by the uneducated, unwashed masses as “gutter terms” that led to their classification as unacceptable words. Rich, educated, elite people found other ways of saying the same thing in an acceptable manner. (That is an incredibly important point, but it is not understood by the vast majority of people when considering “swear words”.)

IMPORTANT AUTHOR’S NOTE AND SUMMARY: Please understand, I do not advocate “swearing and cursing” IN UNCONTROLLED, PUBLIC VENUES as they are defined in our day and age. I try to avoid placing intentional offense in front of people, even when I feel that such offense is misguided and somewhat immature. (Hence, my warning within this post about the words I spell out fully.) I teach my children that “swearing and cursing”, as defined in our modern times, are not violations of religious command but, rather, violations of societal expectations – but I also advise them to follow that expectation. In this case, not putting a stumblingblock in front of others is more important than doing something just because it’s not wrong. It is a personal sacrifice for the overall harmony of the community, exactly as someone who doesn’t feel it is necessary to cover up while breastfeeding might still do so in order to honor the general sensibilities of their community. I teach my children that the proper definition of “swearing” and using “curse words” in our time should be “using certain words out of original meaning as expletives (or words with no inherent meaning as used in the new context).” In this context, it is perfectly acceptable to use an alternate term for manure, as long as you are referring to manure (“Don’t step in the horse shit.”), but not within an  expression like, “Oh, shit!”  That is my personal decision; your mileage may vary.

I just wish people would stop telling other people they will be damned to Hell for swearing and cursing according to our bastardized interpretations. That simply isn’t scriptural. Remember, it is God Himself and His prophets who use the words “damn” and “hell” in our scriptures exponentially more than anyone else.

Discuss the following:

What is the difference between a one syllable word and a five syllable word if they mean exactly the same thing? Why is “excrement” or “feces” more acceptable than “shit”?  Why is one forbidden and one allowed?  Why is “frak” any better than the alternative?  Why is “heck” any better than “hell”?  Are peculiarly Mormon substitutes any different than the move by elitist Victorian prudes to discriminate against the unwashed masses in speech?

IMPORTANT EDITING NOTE:  Please avoid using certain words that will be considered socially taboo on even a more liberal Mormon blog like this one. This post is NOT tacit permission to pretend this is a George Carlin monologue.  Please limit specific words to those listed in the post, as specific words are not the focus on this post. There is plenty of ammo in the post; no more is required or desired.

“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

First of all, what is the War on Christmas?  Here are six of the skirmishes:

1. Governments, retailers, employers and public schools avoid, censor or neutralize all references to Christmas.  In some cases, this is an effort to maintain separation of church and state (for government run institutions), and in other cases, it is an effort toward inclusion (for employers, retailers and individuals).
   • Rather than referencing Christmas, verbiage has been changed to things like “holiday tree,” “winter break,” “end-of-year bonus,” and “holiday season.”
   • Glenn Beck, in a silly mood, suggested the term “RamaHanaKwanMass” as an amalgam holiday covering all the major bases.
   • On Seinfeld, George’s father creates his own holiday “Festivus.”  Festivus is the holiday for “the rest of us.”  They decorate the silver festivus pole while screeching “serenity now” at each other.
2. Traditionalists (who also happen to be Christians in this case), not content to sit on the porch and shake their canes at the world as it goes by, have fought to re-include the word Christmas in public settings and protested its exclusion in various ways:
   • attempting to change the official state tree name in CA from “State Holiday Tree” to the “California State Christmas Tree.”  The measure failed, although Gov. Schwarzenegger still called it a “Christmas tree.”
   • Sears and Kmart ran deliberate campaigns in 2005 and 2006 to re-popularize the use of Christmas in the signage in their stores.
   • Responding to threats of a boycott, Wal-Mart relented on its policy of neutrality and changed its “holiday shop” to a “Christmas shop” in 2006.
3. The focus has begun to shift away from neutrality toward inclusion and diversity.
   • After receiving a signed petition of almost a million shoppers, Target relaxed its policy of using the term “holiday” and began including references to both Christmas and Hanukkah in its store signage stating that the use of the word holiday was a “mistake.”
   • Schools study holiday traditions around the world and across religious boundaries; however, non-religious greetings are still encouraged:  as my 6 year old daughter proudly proclaimed:  “Best wintry wishes!”
4. Many point out the fact that Christmas was not really a Christian holiday anyway, but was in fact an effort to recast Pagan elements with newly acquired Christian themes in order to win converts and de-emphasize immoral but fun practices.
   • Christmas trees, yule logs, candles, holly and mistletoe all have pagan origins that were later re-imagined as Christian symbols.
   • Originally, young men would go to houses demanding alcohol and food rather than a focus on making children happy (or making them behave).  Parties and debauchery were the rule (before it became commercialism).
   • Obviously, Christ wasn’t even born on December 25 anyway, unless those shepherds were wearing Gortex parkas (slight exaggeration) as they watched their flocks by night.
5. Stripping away the religious elements of Christmas leaves just the commercial elements, opening the door for some very well-founded criticism of the holiday.
   • Without religion, you’ve basically got a retailer’s and bank’s holiday that instills greed in children and adults alike.
   • Some have even gone so far as to suggest that Santa Claus was introduced by competing religions to deliberately draw focus away from Christ.  Some people also think the moon launch was faked.
6. Abbreviating the name “Christmas” to “Xmas” has been alternately rejected and embraced by Christians.
   • Some view the “X” as a way of taking Christ out of the holiday.
   • Others view the “X” as a symbol of Christ, essentially the cross.

My own view on these 6 battles is:  1) separating church & state feels important to me; also I liked the Festivus episode, 2) I wouldn’t sign the petition, but I don’t care if they say Christmas along with other holidays, 3) I’m all for more holidays, not fewer, 4) I have to work hard to see Christmas as a Christian holiday, 5) see #4, and 6) I use Cmas to abbreviate, but then we don’t focus on the cross as a symbol of Christianity.

So, where do you fall out on each of these battles?  Until then:  “Best wintry wishes!”