I listened recently to a Mormon Expression podcast with John Dehlin, in which he comments upon the difficult position the Church leaders face. He observes that their are times when they make particular decisions based upon a legalistic-bureaucratic framework that sometimes seem incomprehensible, even unchristian but that these decision are understandable. I would like to ask this question: Is there an alternative? Continue reading…
In a February 2, 2008, cover story in New Scientist, Jim Giles asked whether political leanings were genetic:
“…Across the land, liberals and conservatives are slugging it out, trying to convince each other that their way of thinking is right. They may be wasting their breath.
“According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. ‘These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion,’ says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas.
Some time ago, as a guest I wrote a post entitled ‘Academic freedom in the Church‘ which tried to explore some of liberalizing tendencies seen in LDS culture since the September Six, but particularly over the last decade. Having recently read an excellent (as usual) article by D. Michael Quinn on the development of the ‘Sacral Power Structure‘ of Mormonism, I wanted to re-visit this issue as a result of some of the reasons he gives for the increasing authoritarianism and conservatism in the Church. Quinn argues that the expansive growth of the Church during the 1950-1970’s led the hierarchy to emphasize an ‘unquestioning rank-and-file obedience to Church directives’ which is rooted in the ‘inherent fear of centrifugal tendencies of enormous Church growth’[1]. Continue reading…
This must be the the third year that I have heard people bemoan government plans to change the name of Christmas 
to ‘Winter Festival’ or some such other variant. A little research shows that this is unfounded, in most cases, and seems linked to a gentleman named Bill O’Reilly, but there has been some rumours bubbling in the UK. But is this really a big deal? Continue reading…
In a 1926 Improvement Era the M.I.A. reading course included four books: ‘The Book of Mormon, 50c; by mail, 60c. Prophecies of Joseph Smith and Their Fulfilment, by Nephi L. Morris, $1.50; by mail, $1.50. Hu
gh Wynne, a novel, by S. Weir Mitchell, $1.25; by mail, $1.35. Wild Life in the Rockies, Enos A. Mills, $2.50; by mail, $2.60.’ (Priesthood Quorums, Improvement Era, 1926, Vol. Xxix. July, 1926 No. 9 .)
The ’Joint Advance Senior Class’ had two manuals to choose from ‘1. Heroes of Science, by Dr. F. S. Harris and N. I. Butt. 2. Rational Theology, by Dr. John A. Widtsoe.’ (Priesthood Quorums, Improvement Era, 1926, Vol. Xxix. July, 1926 No. 9 .)
Although, I was aware that the Church used other literature in their Auxiliaries I was not aware that they used a quite wide selection of literature. Although my initial reaction to these efforts was positive, I am not convinced that this would be a good thing today. Continue reading…
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. Continue reading…
I absolutely LOVE the Sermon on the Mount. It is my second favorite passage in all our recorded scripture – right behind the Intercessory Prayer. However, we often forget that it was delivered to . . . his disciples . . . not to the multitude who had gathered because of his fame. Continue reading…
I’m not even sure how I got it, surprisingly, but in the short time I lived in Idaho, I received an interesting gem. It’s a book called Religions of the World: A Latter-day Saint Perspective, by Spencer J. Palmer.
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?
The Story of Alexander Doniphan is well-known and probably does not need to be recounted here (For more information see Mormon Heretics Post – A Memorial Day Jack Mormon or see this). Very simply: when a number of the leaders of the Church were threatened with execution the man asked to carry it out, Alexander Doniphan, refused to do so on the grounds that he thought it was illegal. He is now recounted in LDS history as an example of integrity. However, his refusal is also an example of dissent and viewed from another point of view would not be lauded as it now is. For example, if a Stake President refuses to excommunicate someone, at the request of a higher General Authority, because they feel that is the right thing to do, would their integrity be praised? Is there a way of valuing LDS dissenters and what is the criteria for doing so? Continue reading…
President Barack Obama met with President Monson on Monday in the Oval Office, thanking President Monson for a thorough history of the first family. Continue reading…
First, Happy Independence Day (yay)!
…so I was digging through classic Mormon Matters and found Clay’s discussion asking: how much does church activity has to do with being Mormon anyway? He opened with something interesting:
Not so long ago, when I would hear about someone who didn’t go to church at all or have any interest in returning would refer to themselves as Mormon, I would be annoyed that they still identified themselves that way. I used to see being Mormon as a choice, as a religious path, and if you aren’t choosing it then you only make a bad name for the rest of us… or so I felt at that time.
I was excited…a post aimed at me! Yet later (the very next sentence), he writes:
Yet, it seems there is something deeply cultural about being Mormon, especially those raised or at least members from a young age.
There have been several attempts over the years to categorize Mormon “belief-styles”: Orthodox Mormon versus Liberal Mormon, Iron Rod Mormon versus Liahona Mormon, and so on. In the online world of LDS blogs commonly called “the Bloggernacle”, Mormons are often categorized as being TBMs (True Believing Mormons) or NOMs (New Order Mormons).
One evening when my wife and I had the opportunity to reflect on the timeless story of Adam and Eve, it struck me that their different responses to God’s commandments, and to Lucifer’s “temptation”, perfectly exemplified the different mindsets of TBMs and NOMs, and symbolically portrayed the age-old struggle between Orthodox and Liberal in any faith. And as I meditated on their dramatic dialog with Lucifer, with each other, and with God, it donned on me that Adam and Eve were the perfect TBM-NOM couple.
Why do you read and comment on blogs? What is your goal? Do you want to make points and debate with others? Is it more important for you to reach mutual understanding and learn from each other? Can both happen at the same time?
This is an adaptation of a post my good friend Ron wrote. He is Catholic, so with his consent I have modified some of it to fit the audience here, as well as added some of my own thoughts. It was inspired by some of his encounters with a “rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian” who was “more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.” These points, however, may be applied to anyone who wants to prove other people wrong rather than understand or learn.
“After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let’s take a close look, shall we?” Continue reading…
The US Supreme Court just announced it will not hear arguments regarding the US military’s “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
The following must not be interpreted as petition to the Church. It’s simply a summary of some thoughts I have had that I would like to hear other perspectives on. Criticisms are welcome, but let’s keep it respectful, compassionate, and understanding.
This post isn’t about marriage. It isn’t about sex.
Loading ...