The overall article is well worth reading to better understand current political debates, but that wasn’t what called my attention to it as a possible subject for Mormon Matters. Rather, the following paragraph toward the end of the Article startled me:

“Nothing has set the country class apart, defined it, made it conscious of itself, given it whatever coherence it has, so much as the ruling class’s insistence that people other than themselves are intellectually and hence otherwise humanly inferior. Persons who were brought up to believe themselves as worthy as anyone, who manage their own lives to their own satisfaction, naturally resent politicians of both parties who say that the issues of modern life are too complex for any but themselves. Most are insulted by the ruling class’s dismissal of opposition as mere “anger and frustration” — an imputation of stupidity — while others just scoff at the claim that the ruling class’s bureaucratic language demonstrates superior intelligence. A few ask the fundamental question: Since when and by what right does intelligence trump human equality? Moreover, if the politicians are so smart, why have they made life worse?” [Emphases added.]

When I read the bolded sentences above I almost sputtered to myself. “Of course, the intelligent should…” And then I remembered a series of conversations I had with my wife-to-be several decades ago when I was getting my baptism into the government policy environment in the DC area and she was free-lancing as a classical musician in New York City. When I visited her, it seemed her colleagues were always complaining about how little funding there was for the arts. When we were alone together, this conversation often continued as she noted that the government seemed to have plenty of money to pay me well for what I did. (I had enough spare cash at the time to fly back and forth between the two cities; she once, I found out later, had to walk home from seeing me off at the airport.) I had initially defended my privilege with exactly the same “Of course…” sputtering.

Well, true love triumphed, and we long ago moved on to debate other issues in our marriage, but my memory of those conversations stopped the sputtering, and I could start taking the article’s fundamental question seriously.

What trumps “the worth of all persons”, to use a Community of Christ terminology? Is it intelligence, which we now measure in our culture by having accrediting bodies grant us degrees that say we are intelligent? It is a very seductive idea, until I start to examine it closely. Why does a master’s degree in physics make me more intelligent than my wife’s masters degree in classical music makes her? She can play a piano; she gets calls to do that more often than I get called upon to solve third order differential equations (and she can still do it from memory, too). Who’s more useful? How many of me does society actually need?

Other cultures have believed (do believe?) that the basis of rule should be the ability to defeat enemy armies, to belong to a divinely-favored race or gender or ethnicity, or even a dubious claim to be sired by a previous member of the ruling class.  Shouldn’t I be willing to question the basis of my belief in the rule of “intellect”.

I am proud of my degrees and my connections to what Codevilla’s article calls the “ruling class”. My pride shows, no matter how hard I try to become conscious of it and question my cultural assumption. Oh, oh!

Ancient people of many cultures built monuments to their gods. Often, it became a little confusing about whether the monuments were built to the gods, or whether the people who built them believed they were gods. In places like Egypt or Meso-America there eventually was no mistaking that the pyramids were about the rulers.

I look at the great monuments in Washington. Some are monuments to political demi-gods of the past. But some seem clearly monuments to the present rulers themselves. Oh, oh! In fact, the places you see Senators or House Representatives being interviewed on TV are not the most ornate Congressional office buildings. The newest structures have multi-floor glass walled interiors that work poorly with reflections from TV lights, so they go unseen by most people without day-to-day business there. (And why did I bother to tell you that? Oh, oh!)

Other monuments are ideological. If you can’t get your name on a monument (or at least an office building in your local district), get your name on a law. In the sciences, get an effect, or a theory, or an equation named after you. Win a prize. Leave your mark on history.

In the Book of Mormon, the falling of people into the “pride cycle” is frequently thematically associated with the wearing of “costly apparel”. Those on the fringes of the ruling class could not build monuments, but they could signal their membership in that class to everyone by what they wore. If we take Meso-America as a model, they could make themselves into living pyramids of expensive cloth, jade, or shell.

And the more widely those signs spread (physically or metaphorically), the more ideas like “the worth of all persons” became illusionary self-deception. The more people were excluded from the ruling class, the more strongly those still on the fringe found it necessary to justify doing ever-more-questionable things to hang on to the symbols of status. The gulf between the classes widened into violence.

I am very much on the “fringe” of my culture’s ruling class. I can signal my membership in that class through my university affiliations, the reports I’ve co-authored, the conferences and advisory hearings I’ve attended, and the offices of the government officials who’ve passed me written “attaboys”. I can make my pyramid out of paper, and my mark on history can last digitally until the digital formats themselves become obsolete. Oh, oh!

Intellectualism is not a vice. Neither is being a member of any elite. But could membership in a ruling “intellectual” elite be the particular form of the pride cycle to which our modern Western culture can be tempted?

“…Across the land, liberals and conservatives are slugging it out, trying to convince each other that their way of thinking is right. They may be wasting their breath.

“According to an emerging idea, political positions are substantially determined by biology and can be stubbornly resistant to reason. ‘These views are deep-seated and built into our brains. Trying to persuade someone not to be liberal is like trying to persuade someone not to have brown eyes. We have to rethink persuasion,’ says John Alford, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas.

“Evidence to support this idea is growing. For example, twin studies suggest that opinions on a long list of issues, from religion in schools to nuclear power and gay rights, have a substantial genetic component. The decision to vote rather than stay at home on election day may also be linked to genes. Neuroscientists have also got in on the act, showing that liberals and conservatives have different patterns of brain activity.”

The article goes on to tie genetics to political views through the mechanisms by which genetics influence the formation of basic personality types, which are highly heritable. These, in turn, seem to be readily correlated with modern American political party preferences. (The genetic linkage is not limited to Americans, but other nations express the linkage to policy through different political institutions unique to their cultures.)

According to an existing and well-respected personality model, five basic personality axes can be defined: conscientiousness, openness, extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. The latter two seem to have little to do with political orientation, but the other three axes do show strong differences between Liberals and Conservatives.

Conscientious people are defined as being organized, self-disciplined, and responsible, and likely to follow rules. Conscientious people tend to favor conservative political positions and oppose liberal positions.

Open people are defined as anticipating new experiences, seeing change as presenting opportunities rather than problems, and as envisioning the possibilities of the world that might be.  Open people tend to favor liberal positions and oppose conservative positions.

Extroverted people are quick to self-disclose, process information out loud and like to be seen as being busy. Extroverted people also tend to favor liberal positions and oppose conservative ones.

Now, no psychological model can reproduce the complexity of a human being, and the article itself is filled with qualifications and limitations of the various research studies involved. But it ends with a quote that I find very relevant to discussions we’ve been having on Mormon Matters:

“So the guy at the bar [blog] may never agree with you, but perhaps realizing that can be liberating. ‘We spend a lot of energy getting upset with the other side,’ says Alford. ‘We often think our opponents are misinformed or stubborn. Accepting that people are born with some of their views changes that’, Alford points out. ‘Come to terms with these differences, and you can spend the energy now wasted on persuasion on figuring out ways of accommodating both points of view.”

In fact, perhaps God (and/or evolution, if you prefer) designed humanity that way quite intentionally – with separate preferences imparting resistance for society to various “spiritual diseases”. After all, different strains of wheat protect the field from the emergence of a new fungus.

Perhaps, rather than either liberals or conservatives being right or meeting in a middle ground, we actually need to preserve each other to hear truth.

Do we, as spoken of in Genesis and Ether, metaphorically speak to each other with “confounded languages” that prevent communication before it even begins?  And do we also need to pray that our languages “be not confounded”?

President Thomas S. Monson has been named the most influential 80-year-old in America and Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are listed among the most important 100 Americans in history

Other noteworthy items from the article include from the past decade:

• After the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, President Hinckley was one of the first guests Larry King interviewed on his nationally televised program.
• President Hinckley attended a special summit at the White House to counsel President George W. Bush.
• Winter Olympics in SLC with many Mormon Interpreters
• PBS documentary
• Prop 8 vote in California
• Humanitarian efforts in various earthquakes, wildfires, famine, war, hurricanes and floods around the world.
• Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ran for president,
• Sen. Harry Reid became Senate Majority leader, and
• pundit Glenn Beck offered a play-by-play account of the battle lines that separated their political parties.
• David Archuleta sang himself into the hearts of Middle America on “American Idol,”
• Stephenie Meyer wrote of high-minded vampires, selling millions of novels that primed a series of movies.
• City Creek Center will literally remake downtown Salt Lake City.
• The number of temples built or planned reached 151 during the decade.

Do, what do you think?  Vote and comment.

[poll id="92"]

All that have been through an ugly divorce know that the pain can come in waves. Some you can stand against as the water rushes over you. Others are like a tsunami that sucks you in and spits you out in hostile and unfamiliar terrain. It was a tsunami day when I called my bishop and asked if he could come to my house and give me a blessing. I had caught him at a bad time; he was walking out the door to go somewhere with his wife. I apologized over and over and told him not to worry about it, but he came over anyway(it might have been the my unsuccessful attempts to hide the tears in my voice). I felt so embarrassed, but he gave me a lovely blessing that truly got me through a particularly dark period.

For several years after I divorced, I had no desire to date. the legal proceedings drug out(thanks to him)and I was determined not to get involved with anyone until the divorce was final. I had kind of settled into being single and I actually liked it. I worked hard, had fun with my friends, traveled, and pretty much did whatever I wanted to do. I was pretty active in a family ward that didnt treat me as some freak of nature because I wasn’t married. Life was good.Then I read an article in the Ensign about how people in the church are choosing not to marry and that it was considered a troublesome trend in our culture. It pointed out the commandments regarding marriage and encouraged single church members  not  disregard marriage as a worthy goal in  life. For the first time in 7 years I thought those words were written for me-a revelation of sorts. Most of the men I met didn’t seem to take their priesthood too seriously. Some had arrogantly lived beneath their privilege, unashamed of the covenants they broke, not sure if they even wanted to be in good standing with the church again. There were parts of me that held the priesthood in some disregard, sometimes even mild contempt. Heavenly Father had not blessed me with a faithful husband who honored his priesthood, so maybe this was just one of the many blessings that would not be mine in this life.

In more recent years, my heart has  softened on this subject. Going to the temple for the first time to receive my own endowment made me more aware of the eternal necessity of the priesthood. If you are a TBM(as I am)then you know in order to be exalted you must enter into the new and everlasting covenant of marriage. Sealed in the temple for time and all eternity. More priesthood.The first time I felt truly moved was about 3 years ago when I witnessed a baby blessing. It was a young father, a recent convert to the church, blessing his baby. He had invited quite a few men to stand in the circle and bless this tiny spirit so new to this world. They gathered and  formed the circle, placing one hand under the baby and the other on the shoulder of the elder next to him. It moved me that these men were joined in such a tender act and when the blessing ended and after the baby was shown to the congregation, there were warm embraces and slaps on the shoulder. For the first time I yearned to have an eternal companion I loved to be standing in one of those circles.

Late last year all the priesthood holders in my ward sang as a choir. I dont remember the song, but to see all of those men standing behind the pulpit singing, literally moved me to tears. Then today, the youth speaker canceled and the bishop(last minute) asked the three priests in our ward to share their favorite scripture and explain what it meant to them. These young men did fantastic. You could tell they were a little nervous, but they had scriptures ready and spoke in such a way that i was impressed with their conviction. I got a little misty seeing these young men, future missionaries, husbands, and fathers grow in their faith before my eyes. It’s somewhat affirming to know there are still men in the church who take the priesthood seriously.
Can we bridge the ever growing gap that exists between strong and effective women who don’t “need” a man, but require the priesthood in order to gain the exaltation we strive for?

There is no such thing as being normal

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

Apparently, marriage is hard work

Gayby Boomers? Silly name, interesting phenomenon

An explanation for Utah bankruptcies

I don’t think PETA would approve of this

Aren’t you glad we have calculaors?

Even Orson Scott Card realizes that Mormonism is a culture

Another reason to have more kids – Placenta Helper

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

New Dehli: New gay rights in a deeply conservative country

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there really Mormon Nudists?

How many active nudists are also active Mormons?

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

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

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

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

Isn’t public nudity illegal?

Why get together with other LDS members?

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

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

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

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

Click here for the rest of the questions and answers

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

LDS Skinny Dipper Home Page here

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

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

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

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

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

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

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

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

Here

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

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

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

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

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

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?

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/2009/01/23/a-brand-new-year/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/01/23/a-brand-new-year/#comments Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:15:39 +0000 James http://mormonmatters.org/?p=3933

The onset of 2009 brings an opportunity for young people of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to renew their commitment to their faith while participating in a program of instruction, song and dance that reviews the activities of 2008. The program also introduces their theme as Mormon youth for the new year: “Be thou an example of the believers” (1 Timothy 4:12)

Wow I had never seen such a sleek production done by the church some blogs have compared it too watching High School Musical. See you tube video here (please click high quality when you watch it).

Its a whole new media style and attitude I have never seen in our church.

Click here to see the News Press.Click here to Brand New Year Website – I found the videos pretty up beat and interesting. My English daughter who is out of young women’s found it cheesy-she thinks most American things are.  My wife thought it was a little too manufactured and OTT but she is English to.

What do you think?

Have any of the youth in your wards seen in it live or watched it ?

Did they enjoy it or not?

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

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

Thoughts and Questions

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

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

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

What colour are you thinking?

Notes: Jack LeMoult

We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons. Joseph Smith

Are you a Unitarian without knowing it?

We believe that:

• In the spirit of civil and religious liberty, equality of respect and opportunity is for everyone
• Everyone has the right to seek truth and meaning for themselves.
• The fundamental tools for doing this are your life experience, your reflection upon it, your intuitive understanding and the promptings of your own conscience.
• The best setting for this is a community that welcomes you for who you are, complete with your beliefs, doubts and questions.

We can be called religious ‘liberals’:

• Religious because we unite to celebrate and affirm values that embrace and reflect a greater reality than self.
• Liberal because we claim no exclusive revelation or status for ourselves; because we afford respect and toleration to those who follow different paths of faith.

We are called ‘Unitarians’:

• Because of our traditional insistence on divine unity, the oneness of God.
• Because we affirm the essential unity of humankind and of creation.

A liberal approach

Unitarians find their bond of unity in shared values, such as:

• The nurture of life’s spiritual dimension.
• The use of reason and honest doubt in the search for truth.
• Mutual respect and goodwill in personal relations.
• Constructive tolerance and openness towards the sincerely-held beliefs of others.
• Peace, compassion, justice and democracy in human affairs.
• Reverence for the earth and the whole natural system of which we are part.

It is the Unitarian experience that these values form a more effective foundation for true community than insistence on uniformity of belief and doctrine. Unitarians affirm that truth and humanity are best served where both the mind and the conscience are free. They maintain that no one book, institution or individual has the monopoly on truth, no matter what they may claim for themselves or their devotees may claim for them. Unitarians affirm that:

• Every person’s life involves developing a value-system by which she or he lives.
• People should enjoy individual liberty and private judgment in spiritual matters.
• Respect for integrity is preferable to the pressure to conform.
• Beliefs may change in the light of new understanding and insight.
• The final authority for your faith lies within your own conscience.

On our personal life journey we are aided and inspired by:

• The example and spiritual insights of others.
• Writings deemed ‘holy’ and ‘sacred’ by the various faith-traditions of humanity.
• Inherited traditions of critical and philosophical thought.
• The ongoing creative work of artists, musicians and writers.
• The scientist’s search for knowledge and understanding.

Here Unitarian PDF A Faith worth thinking about?

You Tube video explains it very well!  Here

Questions

As you probably know there are 5^th Generation Mormon/Masons who receive all the privileges affiliated with the church

But can you be a non-theist=non Christian Unitarian and a Mormon receive all the privileges affiliated with the church?

Even in our church there seems to be a growing number of active non-theist members?

Aren’t we encouraged to have Inter-Faith Partnerships and Dialogue associate with religions whose teachings differ from ours?

Do you disagree with some of their teachings?

Do you identify with some of their teaching and principles more than you do with some LDS teachings?

What are some of the good principles we should gather together and bring into Mormonism?

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?

Let’s discuss the debate as it unfolds, who scores points, who is the ultimate winner and loser in this all important initial presidential debate.  Listen for points to be scored on:

• Whose brand of patriotism is more patriotic?
• Who stands for the changiest change?
• Who has the brightest hope?
• Who has the least disastrous plans for the US economy?
• Who panders the most effectively to the blue-collar set?

Let the games begin.

For the purposes of this discussion, let’s leave out the core requirements of the Church and address which non-core or peripheral requirements you would tweak.  For example, when I posed this question to my wife (Hawkgrrrl), her first reaction was “You mean, like everyone gets one murder?”  Not killing people is probably pretty core.  [I think she was just verifying her understanding of the question, but you never know.  She is named after a mace-weilding superhero known for an aggressive and violent nature.  Maybe I should check under the bed for medieval weaponry.]

Of course, everyone’s definition of core will be different, but see what you can do.  Here are a few possible avenues, or come up with one of your own:

• The Word of Wisdom. It would be hard for me to imagine anyone arguing for smoking or most drugs, but go there if you’d like.  More likely, I wondered if people might opt to tweak the WoW to allow for coffee or moderate alcohol intake.  Maybe the occasional glass of wine as a part of the fine dining experience?
• Home Teaching/Visiting Teaching. Especially for the HTers out there, we could really free up some time in the last week of the month if we abandoned the visits.  Would this come too close to a core requirement (i.e. love thy neighbor)?
• Tithing. Is 10% too high?  Would you like a lower figure?  Would you make it more like the tax system, using a sliding scale based on income?  A deduction for each child?  Any other deductions you would introduce?
• Garments. Even in the Arizona heat, I don’t mind garments.  But I’m a guy, and some would point out that it’s not all that different from an undershirt and pair of boxers.  Garments used to go to the ankles, wrist, and neck.  Would you like to shrink them again (I mean officially, not washing in extra hot water)?  If you want to be really aggressive and think they are completely peripheral, would you do away with them altogether and switch to what we call secular underwear?
• Church Attendance. Does the weekly attendance standard seem too high?  Or maybe you don’t mind the frequency, but would shorten the three-hour block.  When we travel, Hawkgrrrl has suggested “Drive-Thru Sacrament” to be used only by those on vacation (I’m sure that would never get abused).

Feel free to discuss any or all of these possibilities.  If you’d like, you can add a requirement, instead of subtracting.  Or you can say you love everything and there’s nothing you would change.

This is far from a scientific survey, and we certainly aren’t voting for any actual change, but try to narrow your final vote down to the one change you would make.

And please watch out for dangling chads.

He was a murderer (killed an Egyptian).  Joseph Smith was not accused of murder, but he did destroy a printing press and engage in suspicious treasure-digging endeavors.  Even so, Moses wins this one.

He was a thief and organized criminal, instructing his people to plunder the Egyptians and take everything of
value that wasn’t nailed down when they left.  Joseph Smith told the early Saints in Missouri to abandon their homes that were then destroyed or plundered by neighbors.  Once again, Moses wins.

He abandoned his people in the desert for long periods of time, then when they struggled due to his own absentee leadership, he blamed them (Exodus 32:1).  Many early church leaders left due to weaknesses they perceived in Joseph.  Let’s call this one a draw.

He was a mass-murderer, ordering his enforcers to slaughter 3000 men for worshiping the golden calf (Exodus 32:28).  Then he tried to poison them by making them drink it.  On the Zion’s camp journey, they did have to drink some pretty disgusting swamp water.  Still, not even close on this one–Moses takes it.

He hypocritically spared the life of his brother, who was the one who made the calf/idol in the first place.   Nepotism!  Joseph frequently misjudged others’ character out of love and loyalty for them, often to his own detriment.  Whether bolstering his father’s confidence or entrusting John C. Bennett with a leadership role he was unworthy to hold, Joseph often erred on the side of mercy with those whom he loved.  This looks like a draw.

He denied freedom-of-religion to those wanted to worship the golden calf and other idols.  Joseph’s political platform and the voting bloc of the early church caused many to fear that the church was becoming too powerful and would deny freedoms to neighbors and rights to citizens.  And those fears appear to be alive and well today in certain parts of the country.  But, given that one of our Articles of Faith specifically speaks to allowing all to worship how they choose, Moses once again wins this one.

He was a bigamist.  Joseph has 33 wives of record during his life time, some of which may have been platonic and none of which were openly co-habitating with him (unless you count Fanny Alger); still we have to give this one to Joseph.

Oh, and he was very homophobic, sexist (calling women unclean, and they were unclean for twice as long if they gave birth to a female child as opposed to a male child–how insulting!)  Joseph created the Relief Society and did not prohibit women from practicing the priesthood, although he also did not specifically ordain women to the offices in the priesthood.  Joseph was pretty progressive for his day; Moses clearly wins this one.

He was bigoted, prejudiced and provincial (he wouldn’t let his people date or marry non-Hebrews).  Joseph welcomed all visitors openly, offering his home to all, regardless of their race or religion.  He crafted a plan to buy and free all slaves so that their owners would not come after them for retribution, and his presidential platform was anti-slavery.  Moses was clearly the more bigoted.

I think with some research, one could come up with a lot more indictments on Moses’ character.

So, for those who like to criticize Joseph Smith, does this list more securely solidify him as a prophet?  Or do two wrongs not make a right?  Is Moses’ character simply characteristic of his era, or has the historical record been embellished over time?  How does the Lord work through imperfect prophets?  How do other modern-day prophets’ flaws stack up against these historical precedents?  Are modern-day prophets’ flaws evidence that humanity is evolving or that message control is getting tighter or something else?  Discuss.

There is a certain madness in this year’s trip.  Something inside of me desperately wants to move from San Diego to Salt Lake City.  I will be looking seriously at housing opportunities.  My friends all think I’ve gone crazy.  How can I leave paradise for life behind the Zion Curtain?

Here’s the odd thing — it’s the closest I can come to a “testimony” about anything.  I feel as if this is really supposed to happen.  I have no idea how.  How do I move hundreds of books and everything else that would need to come with me?  How can I find housing that will fulfill my needs?  I have no idea.

But somehow I feel that there is an undeniable urge in me to relocate and spend my waning years in the shadow of the Temple.

Now, here’s the question: will I live in the shadow of the Temple, or of the Church Office Building?  Quite different phenomena, you know.  I can’t go into the Temple, but I can go into the Church Office Building.  But I have no desire to go into the COB again — been there, done that.  Eaten in the employee cafeteria, visited several offices.  And, frankly, I don’t much want to go into the Temple, either.

So what do I want?  Damned if I know.

What is it about Mormonism, and Mormons, that makes me want to live in the thick of things?  The logic behind it escapes me.  Maybe some of you who live in Mormon-land can explain it.

Anyone who’s been to a family reunion has surely noticed that even if we have been apart for a long time, when we get together, we notice our similar traits.  Are those commonalities due to nature or nurture?  Truth be told, probably both, but it has been proven that many criminal behaviors, such as violence, are influenced by genetics.  Are other sins and personality traits also hereditary?  Here are a few to consider (think of your own family or your spouse’s):

• Naivete, gullability
• Passive-aggressive behavior, being a martyr
• Being self-absorbed
• Holding grudges
• Over-intellectualizing
• Rationalizing
• Laziness
• Addictions
• Sarcasm and criticism
• Melodramatic outbursts
• Gluttony
• Being passive or indecisive
• Anger issues
• Permissiveness
• Cheating at cards – you people know who you are
• Pyromania

Here’s a case study.  A good friend of ours got arrested once for shoplifting.  He was just a kid at the time and was really upset while they were booking him.  He begged them not to tell his mom.  One of the officers rolled his eyes at this, and they all thought this was hilarious.  As it turned out, his mom was regularly picked up for shoplifting.  Coincidence?

So, what’s the point of all this navel-gazing?  What is to be gained from considering our familial weaknesses?

• Learn from their mistakes.  Sometimes you have to know the good, the bad, and the ugly to make use of the lesson.  Frankly, white-washed journals just don’t cut it in my book.  I’d like to know who these people really were.  Warts and all.  Because I can probably relate.  But that’s just me.
• Self-knowledge, understand our own motivations.  It can help you to know that you really do have a lot in common with these people.  Despite all evidence (or wishful thinking) to the contrary.
• Be a better parent.  Do any of you ever feel like you are raising one of your parents (because one of your kids is just like one of your parents)?  I have had that feeling.
• Marry wisely.  Maybe you need to marry someone with similar flaws so you can relate.
• Mix up that gene pool.  Or perhaps its time to bust out of that familial rut and mix your angry genes with some passive genes or your skeptical genes with some gullible genes.

As the saying goes, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.  So, do you think the sins we have to work through in life are influenced by genetic factors?  Is this one of the untapped benefits of genealogy?  What traits do you think you got from your family that you are hoping you didn’t pass on?  Do you think about your family traits this way?  Discuss.

Several weeks ago, during the third-hour meeting on a Ward Conference Sunday, a former counselor in my Stake Presidency spoke to all Elders and High Priests about fatherhood.  He framed his message around an anecdote concerning his own five children, all of whom are out of the house, are active in the Church, and range in age from marrieds with children to a recently returned missionary.  He had asked each of them (for some unexplained reason):  ”Do you think it is more important to me that you be ‘happy’ or that you be ‘good’?”  He did not provide any definition for the operative terms.  Four of the five automatically answered “good,” which apparently was the right answer and pleased the father very much.  The fifth child answered “happy,” which troubled the father, who questioned whether he had done enough to impress upon this boy the importance of the Gospel.  A few days later, much to the father’s relief, the son called back, and said he wanted to change his answer to “good.”  Familial harmony was achieved.  The lesson to we congregants was, teach your children to be “good,” not just “happy.”

As I have mentioned in other posts, I am the father of three (mostly) wonderful daughters, ages 7, 5 and 2, so parenting issues are always on my mind.  This talk, in particular, has been rattling around in my brain for several weeks.  I didn’t think much about it on first listen; I agree with the abiding principle that we fathers need to pull our weight in rearing our children in the Gospel (in other words, quit depending on our wives to prepare FHE lessons all the time).   But something about the question the speaker posed to his children didn’t sit right with me, although I could not quite put my finger on why.  A couple of days later, as I was driving home from work, I heard a story on NPR (read it here) that helped bring things into focus for me.

The story profiled two families here in the US raising young children who are experiencing issues with gender identity confusion.  In each family, a son, under the age of 6 or so, had started exhibiting markedly “feminine” behaviors as early as age two:  they wanted to be called girls, they wanted to be referred to by a girl’s name, they played exclusively with “girl” toys (i.e., Barbies; all of their stuffed animals were girls), they dressed up in their mothers’ clothes to the point of obsession, etc.  Neither of the familiies had any experience with such issues, and hence felt overwhelmed by the situation.  To deal with it, they took contrary paths. 

Family #1 decided to raise their son as their daughter; in their words, they had ”come to accept” that their child, unfortunately, had been born into the wrong body.  They acceded to their chid’s requests by, among other things, referring to the child using feminine pronouns, giving “her” a girl’s name, buying “her” little girl clothes, and so on.  The mother spoke passionately about the fear and guilt she felt during her first trip to Target to buy the dress her child had been requesting for weeks.  She kept asking herself, “am I doing the right thing?”   This child’s joy upon receiving the dress (she wore it for weeks until it literally fell of her body) was reassuring.   So, the conclusion they came to was that, if being a girl is what makes this child happy, then they would do everything they could to ensure that happiness, regardless of how odd or strange it may seem to them.  At the same time, these parents were no Pollyannas; they recognized that their decision will have long-term consequences for their child, many of which likely will result in great unhappiness, such as potential social ostracization.  Nevertheless, they were committed to allowing their child to seek “her” own path. 

Family #2, on the other hand, took a very different approach.  Working with a therapist, they sought to curb, and ultimately squelch, their child’s feminine nature.  For example, they replaced the “girl” toys with “boy” toys, they declined requests for girl clothes and feminine haircuts, and they continued to refer to the child using masculine pronouns.  These parents, too, spoke with passion about the pain they felt as they took away their child’s favorite doll, and their feelings of inadequacy as they tried to explain what was happening to their son.  Put away your prejudices — these people were not religious zealots who talked about the issue in terms of sin.  Rather, they felt that gender was fixed by nature, and hence, the best way to raise their child was in the “right” way, as a boy, even if that means denying him things he desires.  The hope is that, while this decision may cause some pain now, it will lead to future happiness through the elimination of gender confusion.  The equated the issues to an African-American child who wanted to be a white.  Allowing the child to “be white” was the wrong answer.

Listening to this story, my heart went out to both sets of parents.  It was obvious from hearing them speak that they both love their sons very much, are not passing judgment on them for their femininity, and are honestly seeking to do make the right choice for their family.  Not being an expert on this issue and having never faced it personally, I am no position to criticize either approach.  Indeed, I think there are equal numbers of advantages and disadvantages to either strategy.  

These parents, and their differing viewpoints helped me see what made me unconfortable about the stake presidency member’s question.  It is premised on the dual notions that (i) true “happiness” can only be achieved through righteousness; put another way, it does not allow for possibility that a person may find joy somewhere outside of the Church and its teachings, and (ii) that “goodness” can be reduced down to full activity in the Church.  Employing these definitions, I understand the speaker’s underlying message to be, so as long as a child is “good,” whether that “goodness” actually brings him or her “happiness” is beside the point.  In the NPR story, I see Family #2, with its emphasis on making the “right” choice in the hope that it will eventually bring “happiness,” as following that model of parenting.  By contrast, Family #1 followed a different model, whereby the child’s “happiness” was the foremost concern, regardless of any relationship to “goodness.” 

All of these muddled thoughts lead me back to the question of what is more important to me, my children’s “goodness” or their “happiness”?  Thankfully, my girls have no interest yet in boys, ditching school or really tough theological questions.  But that time is right around the corner.  Just like every parent, I ask myself how I would react if one of sweet girls came home and told me that (a) she didn’t believe in the Church any more, (b) she was a lesbian, or (c) she and her husband had decided not to have their children baptized.  Of course I would still love her unconditionally, but would I be able to accept these not ”good” choices on the ground that they made by daughter happy?  

This is not an easy question, and my personal experiences lead me all over the map in trying to answer it.    I have several siblings who, over the years, have left the Church for various reasons.  Watching their personal trajectories since then, it is very clear that as they were less “good,” they were markedly less “happy.”  In that same vein, I have watched my new sister-in- law join the Church and drag my backsliding brother into the Church, decisions which have brought them much happiness.  These experience tends to validate my stake presidency member — “goodness” should the utmost priority.  On the other side of the coin, I also know folks who appear to be very happy and fulfilled people outside the Church.  One of my sisters, who left the Church after years of ridicule by her fellow Young Women, has finally reached a state of happiness, but has no intention of returning to the Church.  In this instance, “happiness” wins out over “goodness.”  For me, then, I want my daughters to be “good” — I want to see them married in the Temple and making choices that I agree with, etc.  At the same time, I think it is more imporatnt that they love themselves and find true “happiness.”  If I have a problem with their future choices, I’ll just have to live with it, I guess.

So, I ask you, fellow readers, what matters most to you and your significant other, your child’s “goodness” or his/her “happiness”?  And, if we were to ask your children about your priorities, what would they say?

Over the years, the church has cut back and eliminated activities that, in some cases, were long-standing traditions. Which ones do you miss the most?

• Speech Contests
• Stake Dramas and plays
• Talent shows
• Concerts
• Roadshow
• Dance Festivals
• Monthly ward activities
• Ward fund raisers
• Inter-church sports tournaments
• Know Your Religion
• Gold & Green Ball (Laurels coming out party?)
• Others

I am sure that there are other activities that I have not mentioned. I also think that some wards and stakes may still do things that are on the list.

What were your favorites?

Anecdotally, this question came up in a work setting a few years ago. Our Salt Lake City location had a much smaller percentage of charitable contributions than our other locations. At the time, many employees stated that this was because they already donated so much time and money at church. Yet, despite our tithing and time commitments, we have been admonished repeatedly in General Conference to do more charitable work. Do members of the church feel they are off the hook? Is this part of the motivation LDS have in conducting garage sales?

So, what is the allure of selling one’s trash on the curb? Why do Mormons enjoy this past time? Here are some theories:

• One man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Joseph Smith was often accused of being a treasure hunter. Perhaps bargain-hunting is a modern-day equivalent. At some garage sales, it might take a seer stone to find anything of value.
• Economic motivation. Are Mormons poor (due to having lots of kids, more single income households, and paying 10% tithing)?
• Commitment to recycling. Mormons have been taught to “make do or do without” and to be industrious and to take care of their things.
• Charity might not take some of these things. Seriously. That wreath you made at Homemaking? The book with the food stain on the cover? Your toddler’s used underwear?
• Meet your neighbors. Garage sales can instill a sense of community as people sift through your occasionally too personal and sometimes disgusting cast-off possessions.
• Kids can learn entrepeneurship. And it keeps them out of your hair for the day if they run the whole thing.

Still, every time I see a yard or garage sale, I always think that it would be better to donate those goods to charity rather than trying to make a buck by “casting your pearls before swine” (loose interpretation there). It also seems a little unsavory to me to show the world your discarded objects.

Along the lines of “good, better, best” where do garage sales fall?

• Good – not having a surplus of goods. Teaching our kids the value of living frugally.
• Better – “recycling” surplus goods through garage sales. Teaching our kids the value of money through a hands-on capitalist experience.
• Best – charitable donations of surplus goods, time, and money. Teaching our kids the value of service and love.

So, what do you think? Why are garage sales so popular among Mormons? And is it better to donate to charity than to hold a garage sale? Do Mormons donate less to charity than non-Mormons? If so, why? And just for kicks, what’s the most repellent, kitschy or perplexing thing you’ve ever seen offered at a garage sale?

No, not THE Alamo.

Alamo, New Mexico. It’s a non-contiguous part of the Navajo Nation southwest of Albuquerque.

It started when my brother-in-law invited me to accompany him on a stake high council speaking assignment while I was in town for the week. Turns out he wanted another speaker! I said sure. It sounded like fun, except for the actual writing the talk part.

Just getting there involved leaving the interstate at a ranch exit and looking for some kind of highway sign. We saw a few bullet-hole pocked signs, all with numbers which didn’t match the map, so we asked one local approaching the freeway for directions. She spat out an, “Oh my G–! You want to go there?!” and directed us down the road a piece. Her directions not being that great, we had to choose between a dirt road which looked like it hadn’t been driven on since the Vietnam War and a slightly larger dirt road. We took the road more traveled, and it made all the difference.

An hour later, after washboarding all over the red clay road, passing cattle, horses, and the occasional car, we pulled into Alamo in the middle of a dust storm and parked at the Chapter House. We were greeted by a man who handed me and my brother-in-law brooms and asked us to sweep the dirt out of the hallways in preparation for the meeting.

The members walked in and greeted us. Most were dressed casually, with jeans, boots, and windbreakers over T-shirts or white shirts and bolo ties. They all seemed intent on being there. We put up chairs and assembled the sacrament table together, and shortly before the meeting, I was asked by one of the branch members if I would administer the sacrament as well. The music was provided by one of the Church’s hymn CD’s played on a small boom box set on a metal folding chair next to the presiding officer.

My talk was OK, my brother-in-law’s was better, and the sacrament itself was a short, sweet experience, where each small child huddled in the back of the hall eagerly grabbed a morsel of bread and assisted their siblings and friends with carefully extracting the water cups from the trays. Gospel Doctrine, taught from the Gospel Essentials text by my brother-in-law, was another chance to sense the infuence of God as he shared a sensitive and painful experience from his own life which helped one brother in the congregation who had been victim to a similar tragedy.

Church ended, with a potluck lunch eaten by the rest of the branch, while we made our way to the pickup for the long drive back to Albuquerque. As we approached the door, a senior missionary assigned to the branch warned us, “You’ve got a flat tire.”

“At least we’ve got a spare,” I thought. We soon found that both rear tires had been punctured by the rough road we had traveled. The formerly quiet Navajo branch members swung into action, faces which had been more or less somber during the church service broke out into smiles, and excited chatter erupted as the opportunity to serve arose. Two different “rescue parties” headed out in pickup trucks to fetch tire repair kits and compressors from far-flung homes on the reservation. We soon had two repaired tires and a few new friends.

And I have my first bolo tie in commemoration of the experience, to my wife’s chagrin!

Have you ever had a “different” worship experience?