Alice Cooper at the 2007 Scream Awards

If you’re Mormon, you’ve probably heard the myth that Alice Cooper was a Mormon.  Most of you have probably dismissed the myth as complete hogwash.  Well, it turns out there is an element of truth to the myth.  For example, his father’s middle name is Moroni and his grandfather was an apostle!  Yes it is true!

Alice Cooper was born with the name Vincent Damon Furnier in Detroit, Michigan.  His  father was a preacher by the name of Ether Moroni Furnier for The Church of Jesus Christ, based in Monongahela, Pennsylvania.  Cooper’s grandfather Thurman Sylvester Furnier served as an apostle for the church.  The church is also known as the Bickertonite church, and has roots with Sidney Rigdon.  According to Cooper’s biography, he was active in the church until the age of 11 or 12.  His family moved to Phoenix, Arizona when he was about 16 years old.

So, I thought it might be nice to give some information about his church.  As you may remember, just prior to Joseph Smith’s death, he was running for President of the United States.  His Vice Presidential candidate was Sidney Rigdon.  The US Constitution prohibits the President and Vice President from residing in the same state, so Joseph sent Sidney on a mission to his home state of Pennsylvania to establish residency.  Rigdon settled near Pittsburgh (the place of his birth) when he received the news of Joseph’s death.  Rigdon was there just a few weeks.

Rigdon returned to Nauvoo with the rest of the apostles.  There was a special meeting on August 8, 1844.  According to Richard Van Wagonner, Sidney Rigdon’s biographer, on page 338, Van Wagoner documents Rigdon telling Jedidiah  Grant

‘that he felt prepared to claim “the Prophetic mantle” and that he would “now take his place at the head of the church, in spite of men or devils, at the risk of his life.’  Rigdon seems to have underestimated Brigham Young, who had succession ideas as well.

…From page 339,

Hyde reported that Rigdon was just “about to ask for an expression of the people by vote; when lo! to his grief and mortification, [Brigham Young] stepped upon the stand… and with a word stayed all the proceedings of Mr. Rigdon.  Young, who later recalled the event in 1860, stated:  “[W]hen I went to meet Sidney  Rigdon on the ground I went alone, and was ready along to face and drive the dogs from the flock.”

Anyway, most of you know that Rigdon and Young excommunicated each other.  Rigdon went back to Pittsburgh and started his own church.  In the appendix is a reference to the Bickertonites on page 473.

Sidney’s Rigdon’s Church of Jesus Christ of the Children of Zion disintegrated within a decade after his death.  …  But the Church of Jesus Christ, a small sect organized in 1862 by William Bickerton, still venerates Rigdon.

Bickerton, an 1845 convert to Sidney Rigdon’s Church of Christ, found himself adrift after Rigdon’s failures in Pittsburgh and the Cumberland Valley.  For a brief period in the early 1850s Bickerton affiliated with a branch of the Utah Mormons at West Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, although he personally declared that “his testimony… is that the blessing he received came thru obedience to the restored Gospel in 1845 with Rigdon’s people.”

After the Utah church publicly announced its long-term practice of polygamy in 1852, Bickerton left that organization.  In 1854 he held a successful conference in West Elizabeth at which several persons were baptized.  By 1858 he had attained a following of nearly 100 persons and had organized them into branches in Wheeling, West Virginia; Pine Run, Allegheny; and Greenock, Pennsylvania.

In an 1859 conference Bickerton was acknowledged as a prophet by his followers.  Two years later he was sustained a “Prophet and President of the Church” with counselors Charles Brown and Beorge Barnes.  During a July 1862 conference at Greenock twelve apostles and a number of evangelists were ordained.  The church was officially organized during this conference although not legally incorporated until 10 June 1865.

The church, which maintains its world headquarters today in Monongahela, Pennsylvania, at last report numbered 10,000 members.  The current First Presidency is Dominic Thomas, Paul Palmieri, and Robert Watson.  The church is organized into seven districts in the U.S., and has missions in Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, Kenya, Nigeria, India, England, Italy, Holland, and Germany.

The Bickertonite Church is the 3rd largest Mormon sect, behind the LDS Church and RLDS Church (known now as the Community of Christ.)  Alice Cooper’s grandfather was an apostle of this church.  I think it’s pretty safe to say that Cooper was raised with a pretty firm knowledge of the Book of Mormon.

I’ve heard Cooper attends a Methodist Church, and an Assembly of God Church.  I don’t know if either of these rumors are true.  He has been interviewed and said,

Cooper has confirmed in interviews that he is in fact a born again Christian.  [World Net Daily article in which Cooper speaks of his wish to shun so called celebrity Christianity] He has avoided so called “celebrity Christianity” because, as Cooper states himself: “It’s really easy to focus on Alice Cooper and not on Christ. I’m a rock singer. I’m nothing more than that. I’m not a philosopher. I consider myself low on the totem pole of knowledgeable Christians.[Interview with Radio Talk Show HostDrew Marshall] So, don’t look for answers from me”.[Cooper speaking in a a World Net Daily article]

When asked by the British Sunday Times newspaper in 2001 how a rebellious shock-rocker could be a Christian, Cooper is credited with providing this response “Drinking beer is easy. Trashing your hotel room is easy. But being a Christian, that’s a tough call. That’s real rebellion!”[Cooper's response to The Sunday Times is quoted in an online Good News magazine article dealing with well known rock musicians who have a Christian faith]

So, what do you make of the Bickertonite’s most famous member?  I don’t believe Bickertonites like to call themselves “Mormons”, but they firmly believe in the Book of Mormon, so I think the label could apply in this case.  So no, Alice Cooper is not technically a Mormon, but I bet the rumors hold a bit more truth than you ever believed.  Am I right?

I’m 1/16 th Chippewa and don’t even look a little Indian! I figure from my knee down is pure Chippewa and  for whatever reason  I am pretty proud of that. In the afterlife if possible I would like that section preserved if God sees fit.  Below is my Great Grandmother and Grandmother — you can see even from one generation to the next how things change.

I would also like to see my ancestors who are pure Chippewa with all their beautiful dark skin and get to know them as they were living on the earth before God changes their skin colour to white.

We have met an Elder who the sisters of all ages seem to swoon over — he is half Tongan and half Hawaiian. There is no other way to put it but he is a lady killer! We discussed this subject, and it doesn’t seem to bother him if the doctrine does literally mean white and not pure.  He doesn’t mind if he becomes white in the afterlife. It seems to disturb me more than it does him. It’s something he and his family have come to grips with.

I guess I better get down to what has caused my dissonance.   Here are some statements by the prophets about a Book of Mormon passage found in 2 Nephi 30:6 regarding a change Lamanites would experience if they embraced the Book of Mormon.  In every edition save one (1840), the words “white and delightsome” were used.  In the 1981 edition, the editors reverted to the 1840 edition’s “pure and delightsome” wording.

Prophet Statements

President Brigham Young
“You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation …When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people.” (Journal of Discourses 7:336)

W.W. Phelps to Brigham Young quoting Joseph Smith:

“It is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites that their posterity, may become white, delightsome and just.’” In the 8 December 1831 Ohio Star, Ezra Booth wrote of a revelation directing Mormon elders to marry with the “natives.” (Sunstone, November 1993, footnote #5, pg. 52)

Apostle Spencer W. Kimball

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today…. The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl–sixteen–sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents–on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather….These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.” (Apostle Elder Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Address, April 1, 1967)

2 Nephi 5:21

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

3 Nephi 2:12-15 teaches that dark-skinned Lamanites who converted unto the Lord had their curse taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites.

“White” versus “Pure” (Maxwell Institute)

According to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Nephi, speaking of the latter-day restoration, discussed the future conversion of Lehi’s descendants: “And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6). In 1840 the Book of Mormon was “carefully revised by the translator,” Joseph Smith, and in that edition the expression “white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome.” This change seems to reflect the Prophet’s concern that modern readers might misinterpret this passage as a reference to racial changes rather than to changes in righteousness. Possibly his sojourns in Ohio and Missouri had altered his perspective of the racial connotations of the term white in the contemporary United States, particularly among slaves and slaveholders. He may not have gained much understanding of this matter during his upbringing in New England and New York State, where slavery was not as common.

Unfortunately for subsequent Latter-day Saint interpreters, following the Prophet’s death the changes in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon were not carried over into subsequent printings, which were instead based on an edition prepared by the Twelve Apostles in Great Britain after a copy of an earlier edition. The apostles, being in England, were not familiar with the 1840 edition. Consequently, Latter-day Saints did not reap the benefit of the Prophet’s clarification until it was restored in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon.  Some critics have been fond of citing statements of earlier Latter-day Saint leaders, who once interpreted 2 Nephi 30:6 to mean that conversion leads to a change of skin color; however, to use such statements today is anachronistic at best and disingenuous at worst since these statements were all expressed previous to the 1981 correction and merely echo a misinterpretation of the Book of Mormon text rather than the authoritative text itself. Moreover, a change in Lamanite skin color was clearly never intended by the “white/pure and delightsome” passage that the Prophet Joseph modified because it does not refer to the Lamanites at all, but to the Nephites and Jews in the latter days who turn to Christ (see 2 Nephi 30:1—7).

But is the Prophet’s change from “white” to “pure” justified in the scriptural context? The answer is yes. The terms white and pure are used synonymously in Daniel 7:9, Revelation 15:6, and Doctrine and Covenants 110:3. They are also found together in a number of passages where they clearly refer to those who are purified and redeemed by Christ (Alma 5:24; 13:12; 32:42; Mormon 9:6; D&C 20:6). Similarly, Mormon expressed the hope that the Nephites “may once again be a delightsome people” (Words of Mormon 1:8).

Poll

[poll id ="146"]

[poll id = "148"]

[poll id = "149"]

[poll id = "150"]

Where I have dissonance or questions

1. Is from how I understand the Book of Mormon and statements of past prophets contradict our view of it being pure today.
2. There has been no church conference talk that I am aware of clarifying the teachings of the past prophets i.e. President Kimball white vs pure. Many members I would suggest aren’t clear on our past beliefs and our current progressive belief on pure.
3. If these were president Kimball’s own personal views why haven’t the church come out with a statement expounding on this?
4. As a church, are we resolute that this was a clarification of the word white — never meant to refer to a person with dark skin pigmentation who would turn white upon a conversion to the gospel; but referring to a cleaner state of heart? This hypothesis in my mind fails to make clear other passages in the Book of Mormon that still make a connection with “iniquity” and skin color. See, for example, 2 Nephi 5:21 as well as past prophet statements.
5. Why did it take God 140 years to clarify this misunderstanding?
6. If we quote what President Kimball said in 1967 conference would we be considered anachronistic today?
7. Is FARMS saying Apostle Kimball’s views are out of date , old fashioned, obsolete?

I want to explore these myths using the office of Prophet/President.  The centrality of his position hierarchically, the significant role he plays in the faith of many members of the Church and also the infrequency of contact with the general membership make this an apt example.

These myths come in many varieties.  There are stories about the Holy of Holies, about paintings of the Saviour and about mantle experiences. Now all of these may well be true, in whole or in part, or they may be completely fabricated. I am not concerned with their truth claims, rather I think that what is essential in the dynamic of these stories is the way that they become transferable between Prophets.

It is possible to trace a number of these stories (or variants of them) through many leaders, especially prophets, of the Church. This does not add to their fallacious nature rather it serves to reinforce what Bushman noted, which is that the office is endowed with charismatic gifts and not the person. Therefore it is probable, even expected, that these charismatic gifts are manifest by diverse men who hold the same office.

For example, the ‘This is the Place’ myth is re-cycled in England regularly but in a context far removed from Utah. Instead this myth focuses on the construction of the Preston Temple. Simply stated, a number sites were discussed but one site had a number of people who always resisted building permission. Yet, President Hinckley had asked for a Temple to built in Preston and when he saw the different sites he said… Yes, you guessed it. Then, though there were problems, the Temple went ahead. I am sure other similar stories abound.

My point is this, the process of re-cycling and repeating these mythic stories is one mechanism for maintaining the dynamism of a charismatic office, specifically the Prophet, in a Church where the general membership is so far removed from the individual. This is not to say that miraculous things do not happen, but these stories play an important sociological role in reinforcing this key notion that is rooted so firmly to the earliest days of the Church. These Mormon myths serve as a form of transferable charisma for an otherwise distant office.

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

Articles of Faith of Mormon Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General Conference must be coming this weekend.

Twice a year, I can’t help formulating hopes and expectations, or making predictions about what we might hear in the next General Conference. There are a few things that are givens. We can expect to hear spiritual messages that transcend the issues discussed most often on LDS blogs. We can expect to hear speakers relate sincere, heart-felt experiences that bring comfort to those who are struggling with loneliness, loss, sickness, guilt, or feelings of inadequacy. Those are messages I know I can expect to hear every conference.  But the anticipation that slowly builds in my mind over the couple weeks before Conference is whether we will hear anything about the issues typically discussed in the Bloggernacle by those for whom the Church is more than a religion or a lifestyle, and who make a hobby out of studying Mormonism from an academic standpoint.

Major changes in the Church have been announced at General Conferences in the past, and when the Ninth Article of Faith tells us that God “will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God,” I can’t help wondering whether any of those “great and important things” will come out this Conference.

I invite you to express your own hopes, expectations, and predictions for this coming General Conference in the comment section below. But before doing so, I’d like to share with you a few of mine.

1. Consensus and Clarity About the Nature of Revelation

I have come to believe we are a bit schizophrenic in the Church when it comes to defining and explaining what “revelation” is, particularly as it applies to revelations received by the Prophets and Apostles.  Some Church leaders and members seem to view revelation as a process whereby God transmits his exact thoughts and words directly to the Prophet, who then passes them on to us without any human interference or input, such that revelations handed down by the Prophets are completely free from any human considerations (e.g. economic, political) in their origin, and completely free from any human error in the Prophet’s perception and interpretation of what he believes God told him.  Some LDS apologists have referred to this version of revelation as reflecting a “fundamentalist” mindset, so for the sake of ease I’ll refer to this as the “Fundamentalist Version” of revelation.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation is usually presented when Church leaders are trying to create unity and motivate members to rally around a particular program or policy and carry it out without question or challenge. The Fundamentalist Version creates compliance and squashes dissent because if we view revelation as a pure transmission of God’s will devoid of any human imperfections, then members will feel no room to question or refuse to comply, and Church leaders will feel divinely justified in reprimanding and punishing those who do.  A few examples of scriptures or quotes used to support the Fundamentalist Version of revelation are: “whether it be from my mouth or the mouth of my servants, it is the same” or “the Prophet will never lead us astray.”  And when something the Prophet says or does seems not to make sense, the scripture “[God's] ways are higher than [man's] ways” is often invoked, the implication being that if what the Prophet says or does doesn’t make sense, it must be because it is one of those “higher” divine truths, rather than because the Prophet has made a human error.  The Fundamentalist Version of revelation seems simple, clear, and provides a feeling of comfort and safety to people looking for a reliable guide to help them navigate through the perils and uncertainties of the world.  But this Fundamentalist Version of revelation also has a significant downside: it creates an image of Prophets as being men who do not err in their revelations, so when people encounter evidence that seems to overwhelmingly demonstrate that Prophets past and present have erred, this Fundamentalist Version of revelation provides no framework to reconcile those obvious human errors with the belief that so-and-so was a genuine Prophet of God.  In other words, the Fundamentalist Version of revelation creates the expectation that Prophets and their revelations are infallible, because despite the occasional acknowledgements of prophetic fallibility in theory, telling people that whatever the Prophet says is what God says creates an illusion of prophetic infallibility in practice.  As a result, when Church members who embrace the Fundamentalist Version of revelation encounter convincing proof of human error in the statements or actions of Prophets (and if the Internet provides us an accurate glimpse, there are many such people) they become disillusioned and stop believing in the concept of revelation altogether.

However, there is another version of revelation within the Church, one which has long existed alongside this Fundamentalist Version in our scripture and in Church leaders’ statements.  And because it has become so popular with LDS Apologists, we could call it the Apologist Version of revelation.  In the Apologist Version, revelation is understood to be a collaborative process between a perfect, omniscient God and imperfect men with limited understanding who “see through a glass, darkly.” In the Apologist Version, we understand that revelation is a transmission of divine knowledge oftentimes received as somewhat vague “impressions” that can be misperceived and misinterpreted by fallible men who have cultural biases, human passions, political and economic considerations, and pride.  As a result, we hope and expect that revelations will usually reflect God’s will on at least a general level, but we recognize that sometimes those revelations will err in their specifics, or (hopefully rarely) be wrong altogether.  This version of revelation is usually presented in the context of apologetics when responding to uncomfortable evidence that seems to conclusively demonstrate that the statements or policies of past or present Prophets and Apostles have been in error.  Thus, the Apologist Version of revelation is often used to persuade someone that he should not lose his testimony of Joseph Smith as a Prophet because it allows someone like Joseph Smith to inadvertently mix human errors into his revelations and still be a Prophet. In support of this version of revelation, apologists cite the acknowledgments in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that God’s servants “err” in ways that are eventually “made known” but that their revelations should be heeded nonetheless.  Or we find the Apologist Version of revelation in Joseph Smith’s famous quotes that “some revelations are from God, some are from man, and some are from the devil” or that “a prophet is only a prophet when he speaks as a prophet.” The overall idea presented in this version of revelation is that it sometimes contains human errors, and therefore we ought to expect to find such errors without losing our testimony of Church leaders’ prophetic callings when we do.  Of course, the drawback of the Apologist Version of revelation from the perspective a Church leader is that it causes some Church members to feel free to doubt, question, challenge, or refuse to comply with the Prophet’s purported revelations on the grounds that they reflect the will of man rather than the will of God.  And such doubting and dissent is a hindrance to administrative effectiveness in any organization.

Because I see these two different versions of revelation existing within the Church, anytime the subject of revelation comes up in a talk, either directly or indirectly, my ears always perk up and I listen closely to which version is being presented: the Fundamentalist Version or the Apologist Version.  Overall, it’s my feeling that the Fundamentalist Version of revelation is most often presented in sermons and lessons by both Church leaders and members, with a sprinkling of the Apologist Version from time to time, such as when uncomfortable situations arise where it become necessary to acknowledge prophetic error in attempt to save someone from losing his testimony altogether.  However, I think anyone who has been paying attention to FARMS, FAIR, and the Church’s media and public affairs departments have good cause to believe that the Apologist Version of revelation is becoming more popular and is being invoked more frequently, perhaps in an effort to stem the flow of folks losing their testimonies over troublesome episodes in Church history that seem to reflect human error in Church leadership.  So with the Church’s media and public affairs folks quoting apologists with seemingly increasing frequency, I am constantly curious to see whether and when the Apologist Version of revelation will become the dominant version of revelation presented by Church leaders at General Conference.

Very briefly, four more issues I’m always wondering whether will be addressed:

2. A clearly-worded, official repudiation of the statements made by past Church leaders to support the pre-1978 priesthood ban for African Americans. The policy changed in 1978, but there was never an accompanying clear, official renunciation of the many statements that past Church leaders had made to support it.  Many of those statements are still sitting on Church members’ bookshelves at home.  And when people ask the understandable question of why the ban was ever instituted in the first place, those old statements, some of which are extremely hurtful, are sometimes trotted out by misguided members.  We know a committee was formed to draft such a statement several years ago, and there were high hopes such a statement would be presented at the 20-year and 30-year anniversaries of the rescission of that ban, but it didn’t come. Will it come this Conference?

3. Will we receive messages aimed at preparing Church members to continue to generously donate their time and money to support legislation to prevent Same-Sex Marriage? Or will the negative backlash from some quarters regarding the Church’s heavy involvement in Prop. 8 result in a more moderate approach that simply “encourages” members to do so, but this time without creating a mechanism of administrative enforcement for that “encouragement”? I have heard anecdotal stories about General Authorities saying that Prop. 8 was nothing compared to what the Church will be doing in the future, so we shall see what comes out about that topic in Conference.

4. Clarification about what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are. Recently, a notable LDS apologist who specializes in Egyptology and the Book of Abraham, Dr. John Gee, gave a talk in which he provided a list of what was “central” to the Restored Gospel.  His list included the Book of Mormon, but excluded the book of scripture that he has researched and defended for so long: the Book of Abraham.  Dr. Gee’s speech prompted discussion about the criteria for determining what the “central” components of the Restored Gospel are, and also fueled speculation about whether Dr. Gee’s exclusion of the Book of Abraham reflected a lack of scholarly confidence in Joseph Smith’s claims about that book of scripture in attempt to establish a “fall back position” where the Church can argue that academic challenges to the Book of Abraham should not undermine anyone’s testimony of Joseph Smith’s status as a Prophet on the theory that the book is “not central to the Restored Gospel.”  Was Dr. Gee’s statement a prelude to a change in the way the Church views, teaches, and uses the Book of Abraham? My guess is probably not; the Church seldom seems to move that quickly. But the Church’s relatively recent revision of the Introduction to the Book of Mormon, which was preceded by an emerging consensus among LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon action took place within a limited geography rather than upon the entire American Continent, demonstrates that these types of issues are receiving the attention of the General Authorities, and that the General Authorities are willing to adjust the Church’s claims about its books of scripture.  So perhaps something is in the works on this issue.

5.  Warnings, admonishments, and clarifications about what the General Authorities view as being appropriate and inappropriate online discussion of LDS doctrine and history. Elder Ballard’s recent encouragement to become involved in online discussions about the Church seems to have enlarged the pool of Mormons participating in the Bloggernacle and other online discussion fora.  However, it seems only a matter of time that Church leaders will recognize that Church members’ increased involvement in online discussions about Church history and doctrine will only increase the likelihood that they will come into contact with uncomfortable information that they otherwise would not have encountered.  Around 20 years ago, Elder Oaks delivered an address in which he warned Church members about participating in symposia and becoming involved with “alternate voices.”  But Elder Ballard’s encouragement to become involved in the world of online discussions seems to have departed from that approach, or to have at least created ambiguity about the degree to which faithful Church members should be involving themselves in online discussions and debates, even with the intent to defend the Church.  Will the General Authorities issue any warnings or admonishments about the “proper” way to discuss Church topics online, or the “proper” online fora to visit?  If so, it seems Elder Ballard would be the most likely Apostle to deliver that message.

Overall, I should say my expectations are not high that issue #2 will receive any mention in Conference.  While I do believe it is possible, it seems the Church prefers to make such statements more quietly in between Conferences, rather than making any sort of dramatic public announcement that will attract attention to an uncomfortable topic.  But I do think it’s very possible we will hear messages addressing issues #3 , #4, and #5.

So, what are your hopes, expectations, or predictions for this coming General Conference?

I was talking with a friend recently about addictions. Things like alcohol, caffeine, meth, and heroin (among many other substances) all seem to rob the addict of their free will to some extent. At some point in the conversation we started talking about mythology, and he mentioned how vampires could be viewed metaphorically as heroin addicts. (There is even a movie with the vampire/heroin metaphor, “The Addiction” staring Christopher Walken as a vampire who abstains from blood through fasting and meditation.)

Of course being LDS I couldn’t resist making the comparison to Twilight. I’ll spare you the plot synopsis but the “good” vampires in the story also abstain from human blood. This is incredibly difficult for some. The temptation is so great that they need a lot of social support as well as constant effort to stay on the straight and narrow. Even the sight of blood triggers their urge to the point that it is nearly uncontrollable. As they progress, they may be more in control but still feel the temptation, as Edward often does with his human girlfriend Bella. The father in the story is the most controlled of all, having abstained for decades.

Pornography seems to be the major addiction of choice in Mormon culture. Granted, there are other addictions that members face, but this one seems to stand out above everything else. Twilight is, like it or not, THE vampire mythos of choice for Mormons. Edward Cullen may as well be a metaphor for a porn addict because he wants more than anything to be with Bella, but he is constantly fighting off his urge to drink her blood, just like an addict may end up destroying, or at least ending, their family or marriage if ultimately they succumb.

This conversation led my friend to remark how unfortunate it is that someone who drinks a lot is not seen to have a problem until they’re a raging alcoholic. There is no middle ground in mainstream society for someone to “have a problem” with alcohol. They either enjoy drinking, and you wouldn’t dare say they had a problem, or they drink all the time and they have a disease.

I think that Mormon culture is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and it may serve to exacerbate the problems of addiction. A drop of alcohol, a quad shot of espresso, a glance at a porn site all spell a serious problem. Note that I am not justifying any of those actions. I DO think abstinence is the best rule to follow in those cases. However, it is often not the reality, and I think it would be more effective to view problems with addictions as being on a spectrum. The flaxen cord in the Book of Mormon illustrates this very well. One cord isn’t going to be that strong, but many will be binding. Each choice we make contributes to who we will become.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Always Feeding the Sheep,

Bishop Mike T. Young

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?

I couldn't resist one of these

And while I ranted on my blog about how offensive I found various parts of one recently received email…I realized too that I found a strange comfort in realizing that it was just a generic Christian chain mail. This served to be one of the times when I was deeply thankful that we Mormons are a peculiar people — I realized that some of the ‘pop’ doctrines espoused in this email would be uncharacteristic for an LDS email. So, I wondered…what if we could deconstruct Christian chain mail and come up with LDS orthodox counterpoints?

So, the email, and some points to lead our discussion after the break!

A man from Norfolk , VA called a local radio station to share this on Sept 11th, 2003, TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRAGEDIES OF 9/11/2001. His name was Robert Matthews. These are his words:

A few weeks before Sept. 11th, my wife and I found out we were going to have our first child.. She planned a trip out to California to visit her sister.  On our way to the airport, we prayed that God would grant my wife a safe trip and be with her. Shortly after I said ‘amen,’ we both heard a loud pop and the car shook violently. We had blown out a tire. I replaced the tire as quickly as I could, but we still missed her flight. both very upset, we drove home..

I received a call from my father who was retired NYFD. He asked what my wife’s flight number was, but I explained that we missed the flight.

My father informed me that her flight was the one that crashed into the southern tower. I was too shocked to speak. My father also had more news for me; he was going to help. ‘This is not something I can’t just sit by for; I have to do something.’

I was concerned for his safety, of course, but more because he had never given his life to Christ. After a brief debate, I knew his mind was made up.  Before he got off of the phone, he said, ‘take good care of my grandchild.  Those were the last words I ever heard my father say; he died while helping in the rescue effort.

My joy that my prayer of safety for my wife had been answered quickly became anger. I was angry at God, at my father, and at  myself. I had gone for nearly two years blaming God for taking my father away. My son would never know his grandfather, my father had never accepted Christ, and I never got to say good-bye.

Then something happened. About two months ago, I was sitting at home with my wife and my son, when there was a knock on the  door. I looked at my wife, but I could tell she wasn’t expecting anyone. I opened the door to a couple with a small child.

The man looked at me and asked if my father’s name was Jake Matthews. I told him it was. He quickly grabbed my hand and said, ‘I never got the chance to meet your father, but it is an honor to meet his son.’

He explained to me that his wife had worked in the World Trade Center and had been caught inside after the attack. She was pregnant and had been caught under debris. He then explained that my father had been the one to find his wife and free her.  My eyes welled up with tears as I thought of my father giving his life for people like this. He then said, ‘there is something else you need to know.’

His wife then told me that as my father worked to free her, she talked to him and led him to Christ. I began sobbing at the news.

Now I know that when I get to Heaven, my father will be standing beside Jesus to welcome me, and that this family would be able to thank him themselves .

…This story should help us to realize this: God is always in control.

We may not see the reason behind things, and we may never know this side of heaven, but God is ALWAYS in control.

Please take time to share this amazing story.  You may never know the impact it may have on someone.. God doesn’t call the qualified, He qualifies the called.

Give thanks to the Lord for He is good.  His love endures Forever.  Psalm 136:1
May God bless you, and your family,

So, some of my possible points of discussion:

• What would be official answers about the disturbing implications of predistination in such situations. How does free will play a role, and how would miracles or other intervening acts play out?
• How would LDS doctrines about baptisms by proxy and the nature of the afterlife play into our concerns about the mortal states of our relatives’ salvations?
• What does it mean that “God is in control” if it is a different interpretation than this email’s?
• The line: “God doesn’t call the qualified; God qualifies the called” — how does it mesh with LDS teachings about fore-ordination, or the process of ordination and setting apart?

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.

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

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

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

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

I’ve been thinking about Levi Peterson’s The Backslider lately (SPOILERS AHEAD).

The 1986 novel tells the story of Frank Windham, a Mormon cowboy from southern Utah. Frank struggles with his faith and finding his place in Mormon culture. Topics including sexual sin, backsliding, self-mutilation, and guilt have made this novel pretty controversial in many Mormon settings. Despite being beautifully written, I’ve always thought that the true genious of the novel is the way Frank envisions God & Jesus.

Something happens during the transmission of Heavenly knowlege from God into the human mind. We are terribly incapable of understanding or comprehending God. And this means that our visions and revelations, as sacred as they may be, aren’t actually visions of God. They’re human interpretations of glory beyond our understanding. We have visions of God – glorious visions – real visions – but they’re filtered through an earthly lens colored by our personal circumstances. We understand God based on who we need Him to be. This isn’t to denigrate the authenticity of visions, but we should be careful when trying to make categorical statements about God based on an earthly vision.

At one point in the novel, Frank is feeling guilty because of his backsliding and he imagines God pointing a gun at him, calling him to repentance. For some this is absurd, but for Frank, it was as real as any other heavenly vision. His understanding of God is shaped by his experiences. Whereas God communicated his wrath to Adam through banishment, to Noah through flooding, to Moses through serpents and plagues, He communicated his wrath to Frank through a rifle.

By the end of the novel, Frank imagines Jesus as a Cowboy, riding a horse with cigarette in hand. It’s an account that is sure to rub many Mormons the wrong way, but it’s who Frank needed Jesus to be in order to have faith in Him. A merciful God wouldn’t send Frank anything less than Cowboy Jesus.

So we can talk about who God is, what He looks like, or where He came from, but it doesn’t matter. What matters is that He is.

I don’t know much about God, but i’m pretty sure Jesus rides a bicycle.

“Happiness is a full bike rack!” –Yehuda Moon

So attentive MM readers, won’t you tell me a little about YOUR version of God?

If you interpret Oliver’s “gift of Aaron” in Section 8 as a divining rod, it makes for some interesting reading.  Oliver’s gift has told him many things (verse 6).  The gift only works for Oliver because of the power of God (verse 7).  If he has faith in his gift, he will use it to do marvelous things (verse 8).  Oliver’s gift is the work of God (id.).

When I first learned of what “the gift of Aaron” might be, my initial reaction was that it was, well, odd.  I mean, a divining rod?  I knew about Joseph Smith and folk magic, but I sort of put the idea aside.  Then, I read the heading for Section 11 which says, “This revelation was received through the Urim and Thummim in answer to Joseph’s supplication and inquiry.”  And I thought, “Whoa.” 

Faithful Mormons accpet that Joseph used the Urim and Thummim and a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon.  He used the Urim and Thummim to receive revelations that became scriptural passages of the Doctrine & Covenants.  Is a divining rod any stranger than a Urim and Thummim?  At least I have seen a divining rod.  I have heard people talk about divining rods.  I have never seen a Urim and Thummim.  And that got me thinking about revelation.

Divining rods and seer stones and interpreters are certainly outside our daily experience, and it is easy to think them odd.  But weren’t they just aids that Joseph (and perhaps Oliver) used for a while in seeking inspiration and revelation from God?  Don’t we all use tangible objects to help us believe and seek God’s guidance?

I have long thought that part of the power of ordinances is their tangibility.  You know precisely when you were immersed in water, and that meant something to you.  You know when hands are placed upon your head.  When you eat the bread and drink the water, it is a signal to your soul (the tangible and the intangible part) that you are seeking for God’s spirit.  When I think about it, I see lots of examples of tangibility as an aid to revelation and faith.

Easton, a commenter at Gospel Doctrine Underground, raised a couple of interesting ideas.  He referred to a talk by Dallin Oaks who said that reading the scriptures can be like a Urim and Thummim.  By that, Elder Oads meant that we can receive revelation through scripture study, not just on the topic we are reading about, but on any topic.  Easton also referred to a statement by Brigham Young that Joseph Smith had taught that everyone could and should have their own seer stone.  I don’t know if Joseph was speaking literally, but I think we all use tangible things to seek revelation.  The temple might be the ultimate example.  Among other things, don’t lots of people who really need revelation and guidance go to the temple because they believe being in a sacred place, a building, will help them find it?

I guess it is natural to think that things outside our experience, like the Urim and Thummim and seer stones, are kind of strange.  But we have a wealth of tangibility that Joseph and Oliver did not have:  sacrament emblems blessed by the priesthood, the laying on of hands, celestial rooms.  All these things help us find inspiration and direction from God.  Maybe God just finds ways to work through the tools we have.

What do you think?  Can tangible things help us get revelation?  Do you have a “seer stone”?  What is it?

Recently I saw Religulous here and he touched on Horus here and a few of the parallels between the story of Horus and Jesus.

Many Mormons when they start delving and  unravelling events in our history also delve into what they can find out about (possible origins)

to the bible or even if you want to say conspiracy theories. Horus is one I have heard of members in our church and Christians of all faiths looking into as they go deeper into their historical studies of the Bible. Look at some of the comparisons sited by religious tolerance

Questions

Is this whole thing grasping at straws or is it uncanny the parallels between the two stories of Horus and Jesus?

Please Discuss

Notes: Religous Tolerance

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/25/horus-bible-parallels/feed/ 21 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/06/nipples-sexism-and-racism/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/06/nipples-sexism-and-racism/#comments Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:06:31 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3704 There was an interesting article in Time recently about Facebook’s censorship of pics with nips, specifically eliminating pictures of breastfeeding moms (and, in their defense, a few of topless women who just happened to be holding babies).  But, this brought up an age-old question of Mormondom:  why are there no nipples on the Nephites in the BOM vids?As expected, the Time article focused on the “merry war” betwixt the voyeurs (er, “shocked and outraged Facebook customers” or “trigger-happy censors” depending on your perspective) and the exhibitionists (uhm, “militant lesbian feminists” or “health-conscious nurturers” depending on your perspective).  But it also raised a few important questions about this very specific form of censorship:

• Double Standards:  Breast vs. Bottle.  Is breastfeeding shameful or obscene?  Should breastfed babies be neither seen nor heard at least in “the act”?  Perhaps bottle-fed babies should also be closeted away in fairness or stuffed under a hot blanket for cover.  Who is to blame:  the baby or the mother?
• Double Standards:  Sexism.  Does the female nipple have special powers not housed in the male nipple?  After all, males are capable of both lactation and breast cancer.  Is this bias strictly because men are more visually stimulated by women than women are by men?  Other examples of female nipple prudery:
  • “topless” models at BYU must wear bathing suit tops
  • Barbie has no nipples.  Except the ones we poked into her with a pin.  Ouch!
  • Thanks to TiVO, Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” had 125% viewership, meaning people who were watching TV watched it on average 1.25 times.  That would not have happened if 1) she had actually had a wardrobe malfunction (and it had stayed intact) and 2) access to nipple imagery was commonplace and 3) it had been an exposed male nipple.
• Double Standards:  Racism.  And why are only native people portrayed topless with their nipples brushed out (or never brushed in)?  Could they have instead done the Mike Myers thing where they hold up various potted plants or small woodland animals to hide the naughty bits?
• Extreme prudery.  If men’s visible nipples are perfectly acceptable in polite society (including YM/YW pool parties–you can’t airbrush actual nipples off an actual chest), why are they too obscene for Mormon BOM vids and temple murals featuring topless native people?  Other examples of male nipple prudery:
  • Rodin’s statue “The Kiss” was deemed too racy.
  • ZCMI attempted to censor be-nippled male mannequins and Tarzan comics.
  • The famed copy of David in the British Museum comes with a detachable fig leaf that could be used to cover his naughty bits when Victorian ladies came to the exhibit.  Nips were okay, though.  It takes a lot of prudery to out-prude the Victorians!
  • Chad Hardy’s calendar of shirtless missionaries could be added here, although the objection was more due to brand image rather than the male nipple per se.

Here are a few thoughts on the topic from various ends of the spectrum:

“While it wouldn’t be hard to come up with examples of Mormon literature that convey a sense of repressed or frustrated sexuality, rarely do we find Mormon artists and writers willing to celebrate the beauty of the naked body.”  Hugo Olaiz

“Michaelangelo’s David is a prototype of pornography.”  Orem high school sophomore at a Scorn Porn rally

““Don’t be paralyzed by prudery. Don’t fall into the opposite excess of pornography.”  Levi Peterson

Is this (pardon the expression) making a mountain out of a molehill or does the mere site of male nips send you into a frenzy of sin?  Discuss.

Jeff Lindsay [The Word of Wisdom] outlines principles of healthy living that go far beyond the scientific knowledge of the 1800s and much of this century…The 1833 dietary guidelines sound much like the recommended “food pyramid” produced by federally-funded research in the past decade.

For me and perhaps many of you it has been one of those solid concepts that when you feel rickety about some of the doctrine you can always count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom.

What I never was taught though that before the word of wisdom there was the Temperance Movement.

Temperance Movement

In 1826 Marcus Morton had founded the American Temperance Society June, 1830, the Millenial Harbinger quoted in full, and with the hearty personal endorsement of Alexander Campbell, an article from the Philadelphia “Journal of Health,” The above in turn was quoting a widely circulated book, “The Simplicity of Health,” which article most strongly condemned the use of alcohol, tobacco, the eating intemperately of meats.

Fascinating Facts on the Word of Wisdom/ Temperance Movement (The last one being the most fascinating of them all)

The church today interprets hot drinks to mean tea and coffee, although there is evidence that in the early history of the church all hot drinks were forbidden.

Word of Wisdom is by Lester Bush (physician). He shows how, contrary to recent assertions, the Word of Wisdom was actually what “medical science” in the 1820s and 1830s preached. Bush claims that the Word of Wisdom would have been far more useful (and prophetic) to the 19th Century Mormons had it included instructions to use only clean water and to adequately dispose of waste. In fact, “hot drinks” and some alcoholic beverages may have saved the lives of many 19th Century Mormons had they drank them instead of the unsanitary water in Nauvoo, along the plains, and in Utah.

Although church leaders stress some portions of Joseph Smith’s Word of Wisdom, other portions are almost completely ignored. Mormon writer John J. Stewart observed: “The admonition to eat little meat is largely ignored, as are some other points of the revelation”

Temperance Societies were organized in great numbers during the early thirties, six thousand being formed in one year

The Temperance Society succeeded in eliminating a distillery in Kirtland on February 1, 1833, just twenty-seven days before the Latter-day Saint revelation counseling abstinence was announced, and that the distillery at Mentor, near Kirtland, was also closed at the same time (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1959, pp.39-40).

On October 6, 1830, the Kirtland Temperance Society was organized with two hundred thirty nine members. Among its members were listed a George Smith, several Morleys, a Wells, a Coe, and a Lyman. names all associated with the history of Mormonism

A few years before the Word of Wisdom, Robert Owen had abolished the use of ardent spirits in his community at New Harmony.

Whitney R. Cross points out that “the temperance movement … began much earlier… During the 1830′s it attained national scope. … Further, if alcohol was evil because it frustrated the Lord’s design for the human body, other drugs like tea, coffee, and tobacco must be equally wrong … Josiah Bissell…. had even before the 1831 revival ‘got beyond Temperance to the Cold Water Society—no tea, coffee or any other slops.’ ”

Joseph tested the saints to make sure their testimonies were of his religion and not of him as a personable leader. Amasa Lyman of the first Presidency related Joseph Smith trying the faith of the saints many times by his peculiarities. At one time he had preached a powerful sermon on the word of wisdom and immediately thereafter he rode through the streets of Nauvoo smoking a cigar. http://patriot.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.phpCISOROOT=/MTGM&CISOPTR=3327&CISOSHOW=3264

Questions

Do you have a problem with the temperance movement being, so to speak, the forefather to the word of wisdom?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance movement does that make it feel a little less inspired to you?

If the Word of Wisdom was derived from the Temperance Movement why don’t we show it in the manuals?

Can you still count on the solid foundations of the word of wisdom or does the Temperance Movement make it feel rickety?

Does it really matter where the word of wisdom came from – it’s a net positive if you live it?

http://ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/934

“What do Catholics, Jews and Mormons have in common?” “Catholics don’t recognize birth control, Jews don’t recognize Jesus, and Mormons don’t recognize each other in Nevada.”

In 1993 there were 1.7 million Utah residents, 1.2 million of whom were Mormons.  It was estimated that 90 percent of the 700,000 gamblers in West Wendover each year came from Utah.

Gambling is one of the world’s vices that so far has had no grip on me.  I might be slightly obsessive compulsive and am worried about getting addicted to anything. I am also cheap!  Somehow I knew at a young age the odds were with the house.

On my mission I saw a couple of missionaries put a few Canadian dollars on the Canadian Lottery , I always wondered what the conversation would be like with the mission president had they won. When I returned from my mission I drove out to Wendover with a friend/returned missionary and he was good enough at black Jack that he won enough each time to pay for two prime rib dinners. He always quit after he got enough to pay for the meals.

In my youth I knew adult members who would go to burlesque shows in Las Vegas.  It was sort of sold to me at the time that it was like going to Europe and watching sophisticated culture.  I think most kids who went from Salt Lake to California and passed Las Vegas put some of their spare change in the slot machines.

I hope I don’t get any of my old Aaronic priesthood friends in trouble with the following. I was raised in a part-member home and our house was a poker gambling den some Sundays after church where the limit was a dollar worth of pennies.  I have to admit it was exciting as a young teacher to have doubled your investment.  But it was equally as boring when your poker face was not up to scratch and your pennies were gone in the first 15 minutes. As far as I’m aware none of us had problems later on in life with betting or gambling.

In Mormon theology, gambling is not rigorously forbidden, like smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol or beverages with caffeine; it is viewed as a lesser transgression, an evil “based on the morally wrong philosophy of getting something for nothing, of taking money without giving fair value in return.”

Do you think the above is a fair description of how Mormons view gambling as being morally wrong and a lesser transgression?

I look at the severity of it!  If  you’re gambling the deed to the family’s house or your Austin Martin, that’s a major transgression in my mind and worse than having a cup of coffee.  However if you’re getting petrol in Las Vegas and put a few nickels in a one armed bandit on the way out, it probably will weigh on your conscience for about a minute after, depending on your conscience!

“Gambling is to be found almost everywhere and is growing. People play poker. They bet on horse races and dog races. They play roulette and work the slot machines. They gather to play in bars, saloons, and casinos, and, all too often, in their own homes. Many cannot leave it alone.  It becomes addictive.  In so many cases it leads to other destructive habits and practices.  And so very many of those who become involved cannot afford the money it takes.  In many cases it robs wives and children of financial security. The game of poker, as it is called, is becoming a college and even a high school craze”.

“If you have never been involved in poker games or other forms of gambling, don’t start.  If you are involved, then quit now while you can do so”. President Hinckley.

Questions

Is it harmless fun for some or will most get caught in its jaws and never find their way back,or just a day a year or every decade you can be something your not?

Is it just a bit excitement and glamour from good people who have been living a life of restricted behaviour all their lives and they feel they can’t do that forever without blowing up?

Have you had problems with gambling and found it addictive , do you have friends that are caught in the grips of it?

If you were in Las Vegas just messing around , put some dollars in the slot machine and won the house jackpot of $100,000.00 what would you do with the money?  Give it back to the Casino?  Give it to the Humanitarian fund or Fast offering?  Keep what was left after tax and tithe the rest?  How would the church advise someone in this situation?

Revelation has  been taught to be in our time and our day!  Did President Hinckley have insights to the nature of young people and us in our time and our economic circumstances?

As the economy appears to worsen will we see some members trying to get a home run on the roulette tables with their family’s savings?

Or will we see towns like Wendover boarded up ?

If you are LDS and work for a Casino how do you justify it ?

Is the time coming soon when gambling will be considered a more severe transgression?

BH Roberts predicted that if church leaders did not address the historical problems of church origins and possible anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, these problems would eventually undermine “the faith of the Youth of the Church.

Increasingly teachers and church leaders at all levels are approached by Latter-day Saints who have lost confidence in Joseph Smith and the basic miraculous events of church history. They doubt the First Vision, the Book of Mormon, many of Joseph’s revelations, and much besides. Richard Bushman here

Roberts believed that Mormonism must “stand or fall” on the truth of Joseph Smith’s claim that the Book of Mormon was the history of an ancient people inscribed on golden plates and revealed to him by an angel.

The problems BH Roberts points out:

Origin of New World peoples

View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon claim that the Hebrews “occupied the whole extent of the American continents” and that this idea was “very generally obtained throughout New England.

Migration

Both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon refer to a Migration of peoples to America. both journeys are religiously motivated, both groups enter valleys at the commencement of their journeys,· both apparently travel north between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, both cross water barriers, both trips take years, both groups travel to uninhabited lands.

Destruction of Jerusalem

‘’View of the Hebrews’’ describes the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. The Book of Mormon, Lehi prophesies of the destruction of Jerusalem prior to his departure circa 600 B.C.E.

Lost books

View of the Hebrews “an old Indian” said that his ancestors “had a book which they had for a long time preserved,” but that “having lost the knowledge of reading it…they buried it with an Indian chief.”· View of the Hebrews mentions a Jewish phylactery dug from the ground which “contained four folded leaves” of “dark yellow” parchment.

Compare this story with Joseph Smith’s retrieval of the golden plates in a New York hillock, and adds the question,· “Could all this have supplied structural work for the Book of Mormon?”

Breastplate and the Urim and Thummin

View of the Hebrews describes a breastplate “in resemblance of the Urim and Thummin” made of a white conch shell with two holes to which are fastened white buckhorn buttons “as if in imitation of the precious stones of the Urim.

Roberts compares this to the Urim and Thummin, which Joseph Smith said that he was given for the purpose of translating the plates.

“Egyptian” hieroglyphics

View of the Hebrews describes hieroglyphic paintings found in the American southwest. Roberts ask, “Was this sufficient to suggest the strange manner of writing the Book of Mormon…in an altered Egyptian?”

Barbarous versus civilized New World people

View of the Hebrews argues that the Hebrews who arrived on the American continents divided into two classes, most of them fell into a wandering idle hunting life”· But that “more sensible parts of this people associated together to improve their knowledge of the arts.” The more civilized portion of this society separated from the more primitive group, who “lost the knowledge of their having descended from the same family.”· As a result of “tremendous wars,” the civilized group “became extinct.

The Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites also split into two groups and have frequent wars, which ultimately result in the destruction of the more civilized Nephites.

Government

In both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, part of the ancient inhabitants of America changed from monarchical governments to republican governments, and the civil and ecclesiastical power was united in the same person.

Prophecy about the scattering and gathering of Israel

Roberts notes that in both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon there are extensive quotations from Isaiah regarding the scattering and future gathering of Israel. Roberts asks, “Did the Author of the Book of Mormon follow too closely the course of Ethan Smith in this use of Isaiah would be a legitimate query.”

White god in the New World

Ethan Smith suggests he could have been Moses. Roberts asks rhetorically if “this character spoken of in the View of the Hebrews,” furnished the suggestion of Christ in the New World in the Book of Mormon.

Church leaders have addressed these questions indirectly through FARMS, which doesn’t commit the Church to any one resolution of these problems and also means the membership can continue to be troubled by these questions, as there is no authoritative answer, only a variety of possible answers from BYU professors and the like.

Questions:

Do you think Brother Roberts is reading too much into these anachronisms?

Are their more important historical problems to be looked at ie Richard Bushman’s statement?

Has BH Roberts prediction that if church leaders don’t address the historical problems of church origins and possible anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, these problems would eventually undermine “the faith of the Youth of the Church come true?

Mormonism must “stand or fall” on the truth of Joseph Smith’s claim that the Book of Mormon was the history of an ancient people inscribed on golden plates and revealed to him by an angel. Some active members may not believe the Book of Mormon is historical but inspired, do you think the statement “stand or fall” is to harsh of a phrase as their are a growing group who may not believe its historical put inspired?

Some apologists have claimed Roberts was merely playing devil’s advocate does that sum it up for you?

Notes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon

Residents of California (Prop 8), Arizona (Prop 102), and Florida (Prop 2) will be voting on propositions which would amend their state constitutions to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, that is not news. You have probably been overwhelmed with rhetoric from all angles. My goal here is to summarize what I have observed as the large-scale effects of this issue.

The Last Battleground

It wasn’t that far back when the official LDS Church position on homosexuality was that it is a moral and behavioral issue, chosen by individuals who succumb to deviant temptations. As such, the majority of faithful Mormons and Evangelical Christians were opposed to even civil unions for gay couples. The “umbrella issue” was that if any form of acceptance or recognition is granted to homosexuals it would be interpreted by society, and most importantly – our children— as condoning that behavior.

Today, it seems that footholds have slipped on the muddy moral/civil rights battlefield and Religion is making one last stand. Fortunately, the LDS Church has conceded that homosexuality, in many cases, is not a choice and goes beyond mere social influence and personal will. Furthermore, Mormons and Christians, in the current campaigns, seem to have conceded civil unions almost completely, even using them as a counter-argument to suggestions that the propositions violate equal rights. These are positive changes. And yet, in spite of these concessions, the “umbrella issue” remains the same –homosexuality, while understandable, even pitiable, is not acceptable, nor equal. Equality is the last battleground in the war for gay rights.

Special Treatment

The umbrella issue is often presented as being about giving special rights and special treatment to gay couples. This is troublesome, because really what gays are trying to achieve is only an equal level of treatment. Sometimes it might appear that gay rights get an inordinate amount of public attention, but there are two reasons for that. One reason is that gay rights are currently not recognized in consensus, so they have to “talk louder” than normal volume just to be heard. The other reason is that traditional marriage is so common and taken for granted that we just don’t notice how much attention and treatment it gets. There is far more time given to the subject of traditional marriage in media, entertainment, education, and public life than all other kinds of relationships combined. It is so common that it has blended seamlessly into the canvas and anything of a different color jumps right out.

The Real Cause

Arguments like these are only deflections from the more uncomfortable reality. It is a remnant of the belief that homosexuality is a behavior that can be disciplined out of society. The goal of these propositions is not to protect society from special treatment for non-traditional lifestyles, it is to protect society from equal treatment of them. The reasoning is that a lifestyle afforded equal treatment is essentially considered morally equal by society. In a world where homosexuals are considered moral human beings with equal potential to contribute to the moral health of the society as anyone else, there is a fear that children will more commonly consider “choosing” the gay lifestyle, thus producing more and more gay people.

The reality is that such a world would produce no more or less gay people than in a discriminating society. It would only produce more happy and healthy people among them. It would save some lives, too. That same blanket of shame and disapproval that exists in our current society about homosexuality, that which the current movements are trying to preserve for the good of the children, is the weight which suffocates thousands of human beings – children of God – and drives them to suicide. If being gay was a choice that could be intimidated out of a person by restricting privileges, how did we get to this point now with so many gay people fighting for their right to be gay? Being gay has been anything but comfortable or convenient up until now and yet it is not keeping people from being gay. Of course, that is because they can’t choose it. If they could, the beatings – physical and emotional – they have received for so long would have accomplished their goal.

Sanctifying Our Own Paths

Aside from sympathizing with the plight of homosexuals, there is another problem with the social engineering approach. It is the idea that what is sacred to me is defined by what someone else is allowed to make sacred to them. Most Mormons have known people who drink alcohol, smoke, have tattoos, use profanity, do not observe the Sabbath, do not pray, think the temple is weird, think garments are weird, etc. etc. Yet, somehow we are able to continue to sanctify the human body, the temple, our garments, the Sabbath, and other aspects of our lives without taking away the right for those other people to live the way they do.

Sacred is the life we live, not the life we keep others from living. The sanctity of your family is nothing more than the sanctity of *your family*. If society celebrates the straight couple across the street it does not make your marriage more sanctified. If society denigrates the gay couple next door it does not make your marriage more sanctified. You can only sanctify your family by the way you live and love within your own home.

A Failed Experiment

Social engineering doesn’t work in either direction. It has not worked to keep people from being gay. Whether they are in-and-miserable or out-and-happy, they are still gay. It has not worked to elevate traditional marriage. More than half of one-man/one-woman marriages end in divorce. Less people are getting married in general. Even in the Gold Standard of LDS temple marriages, LDS Church leaders receive a constant flow of letters about the epidemic of pornography, spousal and child abuse, and unrighteous dominion.

Quite surprising too is willingness for Mormons to use the law to impose social engineering, considering our heritage of being on the victim end of that stick. Haun’s Mill. Far West. Nauvoo. The Reed Smoot Hearings. Have we fully considered the implications of creating a precedent for the constitution being used to impose an unequal morality on its citizens? Are we so sure that there is nothing about our lifestyle that might be at odds with a large enough segment of society that could seek to impose laws against us next?

The Sun Will Rise Again On November 5th

Regardless of the results of the ballots, the sun will rise again the next day. The congregations which employed the rhetoric of war and valiance will take attendance again the next Sunday. The home teachers of the gay members will have to stare at the phone number on the assignment sheet with a phone in hand. Family members will have to sit at the Thanksgiving dinner table across from their relatives who stood on the other side. Gay people will still be gay and traditional families will be no more sanctified than the day before.

We will need to forgive. We will need to love. Each day more than the last. I hope we can. I hope I can.

For me, what sets “Saturday’s Warrior” apart from other Mormon entertainment is that, for better or worse, it has spawned several quasi-doctrinal ideas that still hold sway today.  “Johnny Lingo,” “My Turn on Earth,” “It’s A Miracle” — they all preached generalized Christian messages, such as treat others kindly, don’t judge a book by its cover, etc.  Only “Warrior” had the chutzpah to craft its own unique theology, courtesy of the Flinders clan.

Before getting to the nitty-gritty, I feel compelled to demonstrate my bona fides on this subject.  When I was a teenager, my father, along with a couple of like-minded friends, started a small community theater company, dedicated to the idea of presenting wholesome family fare.  Given that the founders were all active LDS and hoped to tap into the large Mormon community in Las Vegas, they spent the first several years of the company’s existence staging LDS-themed plays.  Part of my duties as the oldest son included spending nearly every weekend night for the next 2 years running a spotlight, manning a soundboard or selling frozen yogurt at the playhouse (yeah, I was really popular with the ladies back then).  As a result, I have seen “Saturday’s Warrior” more times than I care to count.  (I was also subjected to dozens of performances of “Starchild” (the sequel) and “My Turn on Earth,” neither of which have any redeeming value whatsoever and are best forgotten altogether).  All these years later, if you were to put the music on, I could probably belt out 95% of the lyrics before collapsing into the fetal position.

Here are four doctrinal/cultural issues that, by my reckoning, were spawned by “Saturday’s Warrior”:

1.   My Wife, My Soulmate:  At the beginning of the show, set in the pre-mortal plane of existence, a young couple in love promises to find one another in the next (Earth) life no matter what it takes. SPOILER ALERT — by the close of Act II, they run into one another in a park, feel an instant (eternal?) connection, and fall madly in love.  The message, sounded loud and clear, is that righteous couples who marry in the Temple are living up to promises made prior to birth, i.e., they are soulmates.  I still hear talk of soulmates all the time in Church settings.  Romantic, right?  Well, the problem is, Pres. Kimball debunked this notion over 30 years ago:

“Soul mates” are a fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price.

Notwithstanding this counsel, the idea of pre-ordained lovers still gets much lip service in Church meetings.  Perhaps that’s why Kimball’s quote is still the centerpiece of the YM lesson on “Choosing An Eternal Companion.”

2.  Let’s Do The Eternal Time Warp Again: This is my favorite one.  Much of the play’s narration comes through the voice of littlest sister Emily Flinders, who is waiting patiently to be born.  Oddly, when oldest sister Pam Flinders dies, she immediately sidles up to, and strikes up a conversation with, the still-unborn Emily.  Put another way, when we die, we all return to the exact same place we were before we were born.  So much for eternal progression!

3.  My Kid Was A General In Heaven:  The chorus of the title track includes the lyric:  “These are the few/the warriors saved for Saturday/to come the last day of the world/these are they, on Saturday.”  The main plot point is the journey of troubled teen, Jimmy Flinders (he’s the crestfallen swordsman in the picture above), to overcome temptation (“Who can survive? Who can survive?”) and realize his place among the Lord’s chosen in the latter days.  The notion that we are members of the most awesomely righteous generation that has ever lived — in your face, baby boomers! — certainly has its appeal.  Indeed, it is so pervasive that Pres. Packer actually made a public statement against it ont too long ago:

We continue to receive reports of the distribution of a quote attributed to me which begins, “The youth of the Church today were generals in the war in heaven,” and ends with the statement that when they return to heaven “all in attendance will bow in your presence.” I did not make that statement. I do not believe that statement.  The statement, on occasion, has been attributed to others of the First Presidency and the Twelve. None of the Brethren made that statement.

4.  It’s A Bird, It’s A Plane, It’s A Missionary:  OK, this one is not exactly doctrinal, but it certainly is an idea that has become ingrained in Mormon culture.  The comic relief in “Saturday’s Warrior” is provided by Elders Kestler and Green, who are the most pompous asses imaginable.  Working in their own “humble way,” they serve proudly but with few tangible results.  While missionaries have always held a special place in the Church, the last few decades has seen the rise of a sort of hero-worship of those young men (sorry ladies, you don’t seem to get the same respect) who leave house and home for the mission field.  Goofy as it may sound, in my mind, the treatment of Kestler and Green in the play set the stage for this trend.  Granted, they are presented as slightly dimwitted, but the show placed them on the same pedestal we still reserve for elders today (are your chapel walls lined with shiny plaques for the missionaries serving from your ward).

So, 35 years on, at least some of the the “folk doctrine” borne of “Saturday’s Warrior” still holds sway today, despite official repudiation.  For better or worse, that play still has prominent place in popular culture.  Am I the only one with love in my soul for the Flinders family?  Am I overstating the case about their influence on modern Mormon culture?  If forced to choose, would you rather spend eternity listening to “Will Wait For You?” or “Everybody Ought To Have A Body” (from “My Turn on Earth”)?

Not a day goes by that I do not get some sort of email glurge from a relative.  Usually, the stories are designed to inspire patriotism, sentimentality for years gone by, or religious devotion.  As a missionary, I noted that several of the elders were prone to sharing Mormon glurge in talks, especially since the Spaniards had never heard these threadbare stories imported from the US.  This was well before the term “glurge” was coined (and before the internet was even a gleam in Al Gore’s eye).  You may have heard some glurge from the pulpit recently.

My favorite glurge-gone-bad story was in an area with a few faithful members, recently converted from Catholicism.  One of the elders was giving a talk on the Savior.  To illustrate his point, he spoke in the first person about his “brother” who had taught him everything and given so much for him.  When he got to the part of the “story” where “they took my older brother and crucified him,” the entire congregation, who were taking every word of his story literally, all quickly and in unison made the sign of the cross as murmurs of “Aye, Dios mio” rippled across the congregation.  To this day, if you mention that Elder’s name in that branch, people will say, “Did you hear what they did to his brother?  He was murdered, crucified just like Jesus, in cold blood.”

Is glurge good or the root of all evil?  Why do people feel compelled to glurge?  Here are some reasons I am a glurge-hater:

• It purports to be true, but it isn’t.  Can people not tell the difference?
• It is emotionally manipulative.
• Glurge sometimes conceals much darker meanings than the moral overtones suggest (according to Snopes anyway).  For example, a boy believes he will die if he agrees to a blood transfusion.  Where are the parents here?  Did they forget about him in their rush to save their other child?

While Mormons certainly do not corner the glurge market, religious glurge stories are often retold by different religious groups by changing some of the details.  Here are a few examples of glurge you may have heard:

• Teen befriends a new kid at school, unwittingly preventing his planned suicide.
• Child with ailing brother tries to buy a miracle at a pharmacy and meets the doctor who can help him live.
• Boy agrees to transfuse his ailing sister thinking the procedure will kill him.
• Child badly injured in an accident is comforted by “birdies,” his description of angels.  This story was originally recorded by Lloyd Glenn, who is LDS; however, the story has since been highjacked by other Christian sects who have taken out the elements related to temple service and made the “birdies” angels vs. departed souls waiting for temple work.  As a true story, it is not glurge, but as altered and retold, it qualifies.
• Paul H. Dunn’s story about a serviceman saved by the Book of Mormon in his pocket was a retold glurge from another denomination with a Bible in his pocket.  In both cases, the bullet came to rest on a meaningful scriptural passage.
• Patriarchal blessing to a Down’s Syndrome child who then temporarily has his handicap removed following the blessing.
• Japanese pilot converted because he was unable to bomb the Hawaii temple.
• Del Parson’s “red robe” portrait of Jesus was re-done several times based on eye-witness accounts or confirmed accurate by various leaders (or alternately a child whose parents were killed in a car accident).
• LDS Missionaries were miraculously saved from the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.

So, what do you think?  Is glurge inspiring and good?  Or is it soul-killing evil in inspirational story form?  And, have you heard any good (or bad) glurge lately?

Chapter 1: An Introduction aka Our Hero Explains Himself

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to associate with folks for whom I am one of the only Mormons they know and/or trust. Growing up in Las Vegas, none of my close friends were members of the Church. I went to law school in Ohio and was the only LDS student in my class. I have worked at three different law firms where Mormons are very much in the minority. But given the fact that I love to talk about all things spiritual, am very hard to offend, and actually enjoy discussing some of the more difficult issues relating to Mormonism, I have often played the part of “Mormon Answer Man” for my non-member friends and colleagues. This requires neither super-intelligence nor a fancy cape; my only powers are a listening ear and an open mind.

In this role, I have heard all manner of off-the-wall beliefs about Mormons and their practices. I’m not talking your run-of-the-mill “do you have more than one wife” questions. There have been a few whoppers. Presented below for your enjoyment are my three favorite examples. (And since I’m a comic book geek, in addition to being a Mormon history nerd (watch out, ladies!), I couldn’t help but indulge in a bit of comic-speak.)

Chapter 2: The Mormon Answer Man vs. The Lusty Patriarchs

I once worked with a woman, let’s call her Alice, who repeatedly told me that she was “raised Mormon,” but that she no longer had or wanted anything to do with the Church. I assured Alice that I knew and liked people with all sorts of beliefs, so she need not worry about my judging her in any way. Alice, however, seemed unable to let it go, and made sure to bring up her Jack Mormon status every time we talked.

One day at lunch, Alice told me that she had heard something very disturbing about Mormons and that, while she wanted to verify whether it was true, she could not bring herself to tell me. After a bit of cajoling, I got it out of her. She had heard from who-knows-where that, in order for a bride to be married in the LDS temple, she would be required to have sex with the groom’s father and grandfather right there in the sealing room. As she told the story, she kept asking, “that can’t be true, can it,” which telegraphed that she, despite her background, thought there was at least a possibility it could be true. When she was done, I said, “do you honestly believe that my wife did it with my dad and grandpa on our wedding day?” She sheepishly said, “no, of course not,” and then I, in full “Mormon Answer Man” mode, gave a short primer on the temple. I also invited her to call Mrs. Mormon Answer Man to double-check; she politely declined.

Chapter 3: The Mormon Answer Man Pokes A Hole In The “Marriage Sheet” Myth

I worked for years, and am still good friends, with a woman I’ll call Anne. Anne is a devout Catholic and, despite having grown up in Orange County, California, knew very few Mormons before we met. We spoke often about our beliefs and it was always a positive experience. One afternoon, she came to my office with a bit of information that been passed to her by a friend “who saw it on the Internet.” She wanted to know whether Mormons were required to use a “marriage sheet”? “What on earth is a ‘marriage sheet,’” I asked. “You know, a sheet between you and your wife for your honeymoon. With a hole in it for, you know . . ” Using all my Answer Man powers to stifle a chuckle, I assured her that no such tradition or practice exists, or ever existed, in the Church. She was mightily relieved. She too, declined an invitation to call Mrs. Mormon Answer Man to double source my answer.

Chapter 4: The Case Of “The Mormon Magic Rock”

Every comics reader is familiar with that time-worn favorite, the origin story. These tales give the reader a glimpse into the hero’s pre-powers life. In that vein, I offer the following account:

In the summer before I left for my mission, I lived at home and spent lots of time hanging out with friends from high school. I had received my call and was basically killing time until I left for the wilds of Guatemala. One evening, a friend, who I’ll call Celeste, asked me what I knew about the “Magic Mormon Rock.” Given Celeste’s impaired state of mind at the time, I didn’t pay much attention. But the next day, she asked me again, “what’s the deal with this ‘Magic Mormon Rock’ you guys are always talking about?”

I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about, and given that this was long before I came into my Mormon Answer Man powers, I was flummoxed. But that’s not what makes this story interesting (I am flummoxed on a regular basis). I was scheduled to go through the temple in less then 3 weeks and, from the scraps of information I had heard from my parents, I knew that “tokens” were involved. Would I be given a Magic Rock of my own? What on earth is a Magic Rock, and what would I be expected to do with it? What kind of secret (I mean, sacred) powers would my Rock hold? My mind positively reeled at the possibilities! And while I still didn’t know any details about what to expect at the temple, I did know I was supposed to keep my mouth shut about the whole thing. So, when Celeste asked questions (which she continued to do), not only did I have no answer, I was afraid that if I even ventured a guess, I could be drinking eternal damnation to my soul, or something like that. Looking back, I assume she was referring either the Urim & Thumin or peepstones. But at the time, I was utterly clueless. The “Magic Rock” turned out to be my Kryptonite.

Chapter 5: Conclusion aka Seeking Reinforcements From The “Answer Man” Corps

Obviously, I am not the only one with “Answer Man” powers. I’m sure most of you have been in similar situations, where you have been asked to verify the accuracy of a patently ridiculous rumor or to answer an out-of-left-field question. That’s what I want to hear about. We often talk about Mormon folklore, i.e., the stories we tell each other about our beliefs and culture. That’s not what I am getting at here. Tell us about the most interesting questions/rumors/tall tales/superstitions you’ve fielded from those outside the faith regarding those same issues, and how you — the “Mormon Answer Man” — have dealt with them. Excelsior!