Here’s the situation:

Matt and Sarah are a young couple living in Las Vegas. They are very physically active, and put a high priority on health and exercise. They love the warm weather and their big neighborhood pool. They originally met in Germany (Sarah is German, and speaks fluent English) while Matt was on his mission. Matt went back to Germany later on to study abroad, and after a brief courtship he proposed. They eventually ended up in Las Vegas where Matt is getting an MBA and Sarah is a personal trainer. They get along pretty well overall, but have had an ongoing debate about modesty. Sarah thinks Matt is too lax about wearing his garments. She doesn’t like Matt wearing his running shorts to the grocery store, or leaving his shirt off to wash the car. Matt doesn’t like Sarah wearing a bikini at the neighborhood pool, or on family vacations, or on facebook. Vegas summers are just sooooooo hot, right?

Let’s listen in on a recent debate…

Sarah: “I get that you don’t like to change at the gym, but why do you wait sooooo long to change after you come home? There’s always one more smoothie to grab, a car to wash, and errand to run. You end up never putting your garments back on until the end of the day. That doesn’t jive with what I learned at the temple, and I don’t see how you can have a recommend, Elder.”

Matt: [Laughing] “Oh no! I better give up my recommend! Chillax. Really though, after I workout I don’t like changing again until I’ve taken a shower, and I need to stop sweating first. It’s not exactly cool here. If God’s okay with me taking off my garments to workout, I’m sure he won’t mind if I wash the car.”

Sarah: “Heh, fine. I don’t think we’re ever going to agree on this, because I’m right and you’re stubborn. Why did I marry you again?” [playfully smirking]

Matt: “You’re hot!” [Sarah roles her eyes] “KIDDING!”

Sarah: [Scoffs] You’re digging yourself into a hole here buddy…”

Later on that day…

Matt: “I just don’t know how I feel about our photos on the beach in Maui ending up on your facebook–which you spend WAY too much time doing, by the way. Anyway, do you really want the Elder’s Quorum President or some other ward member to see you in a bikini when they check facebook? I don’t even want to know what they’re thinking.”

Sarah: “Okay, wow, so it’s my responsibility to control their thoughts? I have already had to adjust to the culture here… and what’s with the facebook dig, Mr. World of WarCraft? Anyway, that’s not the issue here. Americans are kind of ashamed of their bodies. They could use a little liberation. Gosh that sounds weird considering we live in Vegas.”

Matt: “Exactly! Are we living the Lord’s standards or the world’s? Women shouldn’t wear immodest swimsuits. What kind of message are you sending to the Young Women?”

Sarah: “So, YOU’RE the one who decides what is or is not modest? This is SUCH a cultural issue. In some places an ankle is immodest. And why is my belly button less modest than yours?”

Matt: “Standards for what we wear is NOT a cultural issue.”

Sarah: “We shouldn’t try to cram Utah Mormon Culture down the throats of all the other cultures of the world. People can still be faithful and have different cultures. Stop trying to force me to live according to your sexist standards… PLEASE tell me why my navel is more offensive than yours! You don’t have an argument, really.  YOU are also often breaking something that is very much indeed universal with not wearing your garments a lot of the time. Who cares about what other people are thinking about what we wear. What matters is what we think and what God thinks, and you’re in the wrong here.”

Make the call! Who wins this argument?

[poll id="181"]

Granted, no one really wins, so how can a couple like this come to an understanding, or acceptance?

So here’s a conversation I wasn’t expecting the other morning started by my 3-year old son and joined in by my 5-year old son as they were getting dressed for the day.

3: “Mommy, what is this?” Lifting his penis and touching his testes.
I feel my anxiety rising a bit but try to remember what I preach about staying calm and honest regarding sex ed.
“Those are your testes.”
3: “Testes?” Repeated this word several times giggling.
“Yup.”
5: “Do I have testes too?”
“Yes.”
5: “Where?”
“Under your penis – they kind of feel like small balls.”
3: Giving his own personal demonstration: “See, right here!”
3: “Do you have testes, Mommy?”
“No, only boys have testes.”
5: “What do you have?”
“I have a vagina and a vulva. Boys have a penis and testes.”
5: “What’s a vagina and vulva?”
This is when I realize we are in for the long haul.
“The vagina is a special hole that girls have. It is the hole that babies come out of. My vulva is what you can see from the outside – just like you can see your penis.”
5: “Do I have a special hole?”
“Well, we all have a hole in our bottom where our poopies come out of. Boys and girls. But only girls have the hole where babies come out of and that’s the vagina.”
3: “Vagina?” Likes to repeat things.
5: “Why do I have testes?”
“That’s where boys keep sperm.”
5: “What’s sperm?”
“They are like seeds that you will use someday to make a baby. Someday when you are a grown-up you’ll probably want to get married and have a family.”
5: “Does Daddy have sperm?”
“Yup.”
At which point they are both satisfied and probably even bored with our conversation and run off together to play and eat cereal.
Phew! I survived.

Developmentally speaking, these are the ages when boys and girls start having normal and appropriate curiosity regarding their bodies and to develop the sense of what makes them different from the opposite gender. It is also when they are wanting to see a connection to their same-gender parent. My hope is that by offering correct terminology, by controlling my anxiety, and by being willing to answer questions simply but accurately we can start this lifelong process of sexual education. I’m hoping I can take every opportunity my children give me to make an impact on healthy sexuality. Most of these opportunities are not “planned” events. They just happen in our day-to-day lives.

What are your thoughts about how I handled this situation? Do you agree or disagree with my approach? Are there similar stories in your parenting experience? How did you handle them? Are there things you would have said differently? I welcome all comments…

Now, a year later, I still think that Elder Bednar was wrong. Facebook has and will permanently improve every aspect of our social lives. I wrote the following paper to illustrate why.

In the late hours of October 23, 2003, slowly getting drunk after being rejected by a girl, a Harvard undergraduate and computer programmer named Mark Zuckerberg was hit by a sudden cruel bout of inspiration. He was looking through a photographic directory (called a “facebook”) of his dormitory, and noted on his blog that some of the photos were so “horrendous,” that he was tempted “to put some of these faces next to pictures of farm animals and have people vote on which is more attractive.” Hours later, he had successfully created a website, abandoning the farm animals idea, but instead comparing Harvard students with each other using hacked photographs and information. Just a few hours later, and after 22,000 page views, Harvard officials had traced the source of the website and shut it down, citing privacy concerns. Now, with more than 1000 employees and over 400 million active users, according to Facebook Factsheet, Facebook.com carries underneath its stark blue banner a markedly different statement of purpose: “Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.”

Many have voiced concerns over the use of online social networking tools, such as Elder Bednar of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He has called online presences “digital distractions, diversions, and detours” that could lead to difficulties in marriage, or a decrease in eternal, meaningful friendships. I can’t help but think that anyone who has a problem with Facebook merely doesn’t know enough about it.

If Facebook were a country, it would be the third-largest by population, just under China and India, and Facebook is now offered in 70 languages. Around 200 million users will log on to Facebook in any given day, and of these, 35 million will update their statuses. More than 3 billion photos are uploaded to Facebook each month. By October 2007, Time magazine’s Bill Tancer reported that, among 18- to 24-year-olds, social networking was the most-accessed type of web site on the Internet, outranking email, search engines, and pornography. In fact, Tancer quips that, statistically, it seems that when online social networking use goes up, pornography use goes down. What could appeal to young people more than the institutionalized voyeurism offered by online pornography? Perhaps Mark Zuckerberg said it best, quoted in Rolling Stone: “People are more voyeuristic than what I would have thought.”

But Facebook is not just a tool for prying into our friends’ lives. Facebook offers ingenious and simple solutions to many of the problems that plague our youth today. Previous to online social networking services, people had to make friends through personal, non-digital interaction. This was often painstaking, emotionally taxing, and slow. In order to learn another person’s interests and favorite activities, one had to have arduous conversations, feigning interest and engagement until the relevant information could be obtained. Human beings were needlessly confusing and multi-faceted. Facebook offers a better way. On each Facebook user’s page is an “Info” page. There, the user lists their personal characteristics, including interests and activities. Popular ones include “sports,” “music,” and “reading.” Mine says “songwriting.” I can easily go through my friends list and find other people interested in songwriting. Finding kindred spirits is easier and simpler thanks to Facebook.

Finding people with similar interests is one thing, discovering a person’s sexual orientation was even worse. It was socially demanding, and sometimes had to be done through roundabout means. This often led to embarrassment and offense. It required tip-toeing around the issue, carefully gauging a person’s affiliation through indirect personal queries. People went years without even declaring their orientation, deciding rather to personally cultivate and incubate those feelings for long periods of time. In the meantime, their casual acquaintances were left scratching their heads and wishing that the issue could be settled, so that judgment could no longer be withheld. However, on a person’s Facebook Info page, there is a section where he or she can publicly state whether they are interested in women, men, or both. Mine says “Interested in: women.”

Similarly, religious affiliation was once seen as a private dimension of one’s personality, and thus it was socially unacceptable to attain this information without grueling theological and philosophical discourse. It was not uncommon to have to hear a person’s entire life story and reasons for believing, in order to arrive at their religious affiliation. These traits were once very personal, carefully guarded, and sacred. Often, religion was left out of discussions altogether, for fear that one might be invited to a church service, Bar Mitzvah, or mosque, or that a controversial issue might be ignited in conversation. With Facebook, the process is streamlined, and the risk of controversial discourse is eliminated. Just check their Info box. Mine says “Latter-day Saint.”

Thus, important evaluations about a person’s character can be made with the click of your mouse. No longer must a person withhold appraisal until a clearer picture of their friend is obtained. It is now easier than ever to avoid the people you disagree with, and reduce complex social interactions.

In the past, people often found themselves longing for information about long-lost friends. Conversations about the past included references to characteristics and traits of their old friends, questions as to their whereabouts, and wishing that one could talk to them again, punctuated with sighing ruminations on how time flies. With online social networking, one can easily find out what these people had for breakfast this morning (and every morning). Each Facebook user has a white box on their front page that reads, “What’s on your mind?” One may type in their current whereabouts, opinion on the weather, or recent activities in what is called a “status update.” Below this box are the status updates of many of one’s closest friends. Some examples on my front page from my friends include, “meh,” “Babysitin [sic] my little nephews ,” “irritated…..,” and “oh life!!!” My own status says, “Does anyone want to come with my Arabic class to eat Mediterranean tonight?”

You might notice that these status updates seem simplistic and reductionist. This is by design. Many social interactions that existed previous to Facebook were seeped in over-stimulating meaning. Much time and effort were wasted by young people trying to understand and connect with each other. Young people’s hearts and minds caught fire as they participated in these exchanges. Should we really be over-stimulating our young people? Facebook offers a superior form of interaction through its “poke” function. Poke is a harmless, meaningless, effortless interaction, which undoubtedly leads to little misunderstanding, anger, friendship, or violence amongst our youth. On a person’s page, there is an option to poke them. Poke serves no function; Facebook merely informs that person that they have been poked. They then have the option to poke back.

Therefore, conflict is avoided through personal detachment. And when conflict cannot be avoided, it requires relatively little effort. Consider the following. In previous social interactions, confronting someone with a personal conflict or problem was a difficult task requiring great courage. One had to organize thoughts, plan a confrontation, and meet face-to-face with the object of their problem in order to work out a resolution. With online social networking, sending an angry email requires only the click of a button, and no face-to-face dialogue. People no longer need long nights of sleep to temper their emotions; one can now easily send a confrontational diatribe at 3 a.m., before rationality and a night’s sleep dull one’s emotions. And what if one receives an email like this from a friend? They are easily unfriended, or, in other words, removed from one’s friends list.

You see, before online social networking, “friend” was a poorly-defined term. Making friends required gaining the trust of others, sincerity and earnestness in one’s interactions, and perhaps several months of kindness before the title “friend” could be conferred upon another. Online social networking offers an instantaneous, digital, text-based solution to problem of friendship: redefinition and demarcation. Friends can be added through mutual interests, close proximity of location, or other friends. One could easily add or unfriend everyone from his or her high school. For instance, take Paul, the bassist from my last band, and friend-of-a-friend. Is Paul my friend, or isn’t he? It’s easy to tell: about four months ago he unfriended me.

This might have offended me, but I have 614 other friends. I can easily compare my prestige and popularity to other people on my friends list by contrasting the number of friends I have to the number of friends they have. Facebook’s statistics page says that the average person has 130 friends. Boy, am I glad I’m not that guy. However, embarrassingly, my wife has a significantly greater number than me: 943.

One might think that Facebook enhances friendships, relationships, and acquaintances. I would go one step further. Facebook replaces them with something even better: simple, streamlined friendship units. We are all now units on an interacting yet efficient grid. According to Facebook’s statistics page, the average unit spends almost an hour a day on Facebook. In this time, units read information on their friends’ walls, look through their activities, interests, and pictures, play games, join groups with others that have similar interests, and post links to other web pages. Units often check their Facebook pages several times during the day, and Facebook is now even offered on iPhones and other hand-held wireless devices, giving units the ability to check their Facebook pages everywhere they go, all day long, whether they are at church, class, or a friend’s wedding. There are more than 100 million mobile Facebook units, and according to Facebook Factsheet, they are statistically 50% more active on Facebook than non-mobile units. Perhaps one day, all people will carry Facebook with them, thus inextricably bonding us with our new virtual identities.

It should be plain now how Facebook transcended its cruel and dehumanizing beginnings in Mark Zuckerberg’s dorm room, and grew to be the most popular online social networking service. Elder Bednar is simply blind to the New Truth: Facebook is defining us, shaping us, and reducing us. May our now archaic system of human-to-human non-electronic social interactions stay where it belongs: the Stone Age.

The transcript of the conversation between Lawler and Smith, which occurred late in the game, was printed on the Los Angeles Times’ Web site:

Smith: “Look who’s in.”

Lawler: “Hamed Haddadi. Where’s he from?”

Smith: “He’s the first Iranian to play in the NBA.” (Smith pronounced Iranian as “Eye-ranian,” a pronunciation that offended the viewer who complained.)

Lawler: “There aren’t any Iranian players in the NBA,” repeating Smith’s mispronunciation.

Smith: “He’s the only one.”

Lawler: “He’s from Iran?”

Smith: “I guess so.”

Lawler: “That Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: “The real Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: “Wow. Haddadi that’s H-A-D-D-A-D-I.”

Smith: “You’re sure it’s not Borat’s older brother?”

Smith: “If they ever make a movie about Haddadi, I’m going to get Sacha Baron Cohen to play the part.”

Lawler: “Here’s Haddadi. Nice little back-door pass. I guess those Iranians can pass the ball.”

Smith: “Especially the post players.

Lawler: “I don’t know about their guards.”

Michael Smith is a former all-American 6′ 10″ forward from BYU.  He served a mission from 1984-1986.  He was a drafted in the First Round (13th overall) by the Boston Celtics, where he played 2 years.  He played 1 year for the LA Clippers before jumping into the broadcast booth.

I’m sorry, but I don’t think this conversation deserved more than a verbal warning.  Suspension?  Give me a break!

Air Force Acadamy at Utah football game 10/24/2009

In the paper edition of the Deseret News, President Monson was “honored as the distinguished University of Utah fan of the game.”  Pres Monson’s attendance may have been a deciding factor–the Utes won 23-16 in Overtime over the Air Force Falcons.  Meanwhile, BYU suffered a loss without Pres Monson, getting crushed 38-7 at home in Provo to TCU (Texas Christian University.)

I recently learned that the University of Utah was designated as “the School of the Prophets” by Brigham Young, according to a Deseret News article from Dec 2, 1867. 

Back in July, the University of Utah football team signed a player out of California by the name of Joseph Smith.  I joked that with his signing, and President Hinckley and President Monson’s status as alums of the U, that it was the “School of the Prophets.”  (Joseph Smith had originally set up a School of the Prophets to teach the LDS leadership back in the Nauvoo days.)  Well, it turns out that it’s no joke, and comes straight from the mouth of none other than Brigham Young!

I just finished Forgotten Kingdom, and I want to quote from page 261.

School of the Prophets

To implement a unified move in this direction, Brigham Young on December 2, 1867, resurrected an organization from an earlier period of his church’s history.  He announced that day before an assembly of Mormon leaders that the University of Deseret, parent of the University of Utah, would be reorganized and “hence, it may properly be called the ‘School of the Prophets.’” [Deseret News, December 2, 1867.  While Young considered School of the Prophets to be the proper name and role of the University of Deseret, the institution's existing name remained the same.  In 1872 the larger School of the Prophets was dissolved due to a lack of attendance and the inability of many to keep its affairs secret.]  Since it was founded in 1850, the university had seen few students but served primarily to publish and distribute the Deseret Alphabet.

Who knew?

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

With his blessing, here are some “best and worst” Mormon quotes. To keep it balanced, each best and worst will come from the same person in LDS history. The intent here is not to “speak evil of the Lord’s anointed,” and I value being able to look back at our missteps with a little humor. I am sure when I review my life someday, there will be plenty of ill-advised quotes to assemble. Looking at our blunders with openness and not getting defensive about them are, in my view, attributes of godliness.

David O. McKay
Worst:
“Although, I do not care much for a negro, still I have a warm spot in my heart for those beautiful singers.”

Best:
“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this Church that the Negroes are under a divine curse.”
“Children are more influenced by sermons you act than by sermons you preach.”

Bruce R. McConkie
Worst:

It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which was the most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization.”

Best:

“I feel, and the Spirit seems to accord, that the most important doctrine I can declare, and the most powerful testimony I can bear, is of the atoning sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. His atonement is the most transcendent event that ever has or ever will occur from Creation’s dawn through all the ages of a never-ending eternity. It is the supreme act of goodness and grace that only a god could perform.”

“I believe in Christ; he stands supreme! From him I’ll gain my fondest dream;
And while I strive through grief and pain, His voice is heard: ‘Ye shall obtain.’”

Brigham Young
Worst:

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man mixes who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Best:

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.”

Are there other quotes, best or worst, that stand out to you? If you share one, please try to keep with the dissonant nature of the post.

Why is it often looked down on to recognize our blunders? I have had a few leaders in my church life admit past mistakes or prejudices, and if anything my respect and admiration for them increased. I realize that a lot of us value the “warts and all” version of history, but some get defensive in trying to explain it or rationalize it away, or suppress it, lest it damage someone’s testimony. Debate is one thing, but defensiveness is a form of contention… and we all know what contention is.

When Edward Kimball was writing his father’s (Spencer W. Kimball) biography, he was told that “the story of a life should be told candidly, ‘warts and all.’  His concern was that there should not be unfair emphasis on the warts.” That is a challenge I think, to give weight to but not overemphasize the bad, and also not to “canonize” (i.e. hold them up as more than human) our leaders (something I once heard Elder Maxwell warn against in a fireside). In that spirit, I will put out some posts in the future regarding best and worst in history, politics, speculation, teachings, etc.

We all make mistakes, we all have a lot growing to do in some areas, and most of us occasionally say things we later regret. In that light, I think it is a healthy and non-defensive stance to recognize the flaws along with the greatness of ourselves, and our leaders. May we all work on focusing on the good, but recognizing and being non-defensive about the bad.

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?

First of all, here’s what it says:

64 Whatsoever ye ^aask the Father in my name it shall be given unto you, that is ^bexpedient for you;

65 And if ye ask anything that is not ^aexpedient for you, it shall turn unto your ^bcondemnation.

Expediency.  The definition of “expediency” is:  1. fit or suitable for the purpose; proper under the circumstances. or 2.  conducive to advantage or interest.  Expediency is a big JS word.  It appears 52 times in the BOM and 27 times in the D&C.  It only appears 7 times in other scripture:  John uses it 3 times and Paul uses it 4 times.

• Do people pray for things that they don’t think are expedient?  Don’t they ask for something because they think it’s what they need?  So, is this a caution against being too specific in what you ask for?  Or against misunderstanding what’s proper under the circumstances or advantageous to you?  Doesn’t that notion contradict this one:

Luke 11: 11-13:  11  If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?  12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?  13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give ^athe Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

• Is something expedient for some people and not for others?  Can I ask for something and get it, but if you ask for it, it will turn unto your condemnation?
• How expedient is expedient?  What if something is kind of expedient, but then the time has just passed?  (Like OC translating was no longer expedient, “Sorry time’s up, thank you for playing.”)

Condemnation.  This doesn’t specify whether you will get it or not if it’s not expedient, just that it will be for your condemnation. 

• Does that mean that if God doesn’t give you what you asked for (I keep picturing a vending machine), that it wasn’t expedient and now you’d better duck because condemnation is coming?  Can nothing happening or just not getting it be the ”condemnation”?
Does God ever give you the thing that wasn’t expedient, and him giving it to you is in fact how it turns to your condemnation?  (An ironic twist – that’s how it works on Fairly Oddparents anyway).
What kind of condemnation is this we’re talking about?  Full-on raging condemnation or something mild that goes away with an over-the-counter salve?

Discuss.

To the right is a statue of the First Vision.  Actually, I kind of like this one, although I’m not a fan of the medium the artist used.

This one is from Jesus’ little-known Sermon in Stepford.  Much discussion has been had elsewhere about the problematic placement of the rose and whether this is supposed to be a picture of Jesus with his polygamous wives.  The artist has apparently denied that interpretation, but without an explanation of the phallic rose.

A Moroni tree-topper.  Not exactly art, but kitschy.  It’s almost so bad that it’s good in a Nebraska salt and pepper shaker way.

This Nativity inspired painting is both beautiful and thought-provoking.

This toothy-grinned Jesus is not nearly as good as its unsmiling counterpart.  This picture doesn’t make Jesus look very smart, IMO.  Like he didn’t get the joke, but he’s laughing anyway.

This just looks like it belongs in a mini golf course to me.  Art?  Really?  Was this before wide-spread adoption of the Word of Wisdom?  Just plain weird.

This painting of the sacred grove always looks like it was inspired by the Redwood Forest rather than anything actually growing in upstate NY.  Accuracy aside, though, it’s nice enough with the effect of the light filtering through the trees.

This tattooed man (those are prophets’ portraits on his back) spells one word to me:  “devotion.”  I’d like to see him add one of E. Oaks since the “no tattoos” pronouncement.

I like this more Art Deco version of Moroni, although that trumpet looks a little bit improbable, like a straightened ear horn or gramophone.  Or a yard-long beer.

I have also noticed that many other religions seem to like our Jesus pictures, particularly these two:

 and

So, what do you think?  What Mormon artists do you like and which ones do you not like?  Why is there so much bad taste in Mormon art (kitschy or weird stuff) or is this just true of all religious art?  Is it because that’s what sells or is that blaming the victims?  Or does religious feeling inspire otherwise unskilled and inartistic people to create “art”?

Do you disagree with any of the above artistic assessments (beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all)?

Discuss.

• Intercessory prayer for the sick only has a health benefit when the sick person knows about it.    Does prayer for the sick make them healthy?  If so, how does it work?  It is simply placebo effect (sounds a lot like being healed according to your faith) or is there more to it?
• Prayer and meditation actually change the brain’s development; those who frequently pray have much more developed frontal lobes.  Maybe we could replace TR questions with a simple brain scan.  I kid.
• Those who do not attend church have twice the risk of dying in the next 8 years as those who attend church weekly.  Risk levels vary based on church attendance.  (1992, Univ. of TX study).  Conclusion:  Go to church or die.
• Those who attend church live 2-3 years longer than those who do not.  (Univ. of Pittsburgh Medical Center).

So, why all these health benefits?

• Community centers.  Social benefits of church attendance or being in an extended family of believers.  Some congregations deliberately work together to promote health or weight loss.
• Friendships.  Individual relationships can provide the extra support needed to relieve stress, to feel understood, and to care for each other when ill.
• Physical sensations associated with houses of worship.  As a hospital can contribute to wellness (or illness if dirty or depressing), so can houses of worship transport one’s body by creating feelings of comfort and health.
• Belief that the body is a temple.  When you believe that your body is sacred or divine, you are not only more likely to take care of it, but you create health through your emotional state.
• Prayer’s impact on the brain.  Prayer and meditation can literally transport the body and create health.

So, while every church has health benefits, what are the unique components to Mormonism that lead to a healthier life?

• Focus on Families. Healthy family relationships that are supportive and free from abuse are probably the number one prolonger of life.
• Visiting/home teaching.  The sense that someone knows and cares that you exist is a powerful force for those who might otherwise succumb to despair or feel they are alone in illness.  Friendship is one of the great health benefits of religion.  Plus, you may get a rush of endorphins when your VTers just can’t get to you in the month, feeling like you have extra time in your schedule.
• Fasting.  Many religions and spiritual disciplines prize fasting for its health benefits in clearing the body of toxins.  Mormon fasting also has the benefit of altruism; those fasting feel good about donating the cost of the skipped meals to the poor.
• Lay clergy & participation expectations.  The more engaged you are in your religion, the more likely you are to reap health benefits from fellowship, service, and a sense of purpose or meaning.
• Prayer.  Prayer can literally help your body heal in transcending the temporal concerns that might plague you.  Deepest prayer accesses parts of the brain not normally used.
• Priesthood blessings.  Rituals associated with healing allow faith to release the benefits to the body, much like a placebo effect.  The better the ritual, the more convincing environment for faith (think suspension of disbelief).
• Temple attendance.  Boring?  Mystical?  Transcendent?  If for no other reason, the temple provides a health benefit through silent meditation (anything above a stage whisper is gauche) and complete isolation from outside distractions such as blackberries and whining kids.
• Tithing & church welfare. Especially in trying economic times, it’s a comfort to know that there is a fallback with church welfare for those full tithe payers.
• Word of Wisdom.  If for no other reason than eschewing alcohol and tobacco, the WoW would have health benefits for those who might otherwise O.D. on harmful substances.  In times of stress or illness, though, eliminating coffee and tea and eating meat sparingly can have additional health benefits.

What are the components to Mormonism that could lead to reduced health?  Are any of these unique to Mormonism?

• Stress.  This varies from person to person, but there seems to be a correlation between high levels of belief, perfectionism (expecations of perfection from oneself and others), and responsibility (aka stewardship).  If we could just get rid of that pesky middle one, all would be well.  IOW, “be ye therefore perfect” could land you six feet under.
• Two words:  Funeral potatoes.  It’s hard to imagine a more cholesterol laden food.  Oh, wait.  Honey butter.  Possibly fry sauce.  So-called Mormon foods are neither good for the body, nor for the belly.  If you want to develop a hefty pair of Relief Society arms, go to a ward potluck.
• Repression.  Repressing one’s feelings can lead to depression, ulcers, and can weaken the immune system and make one more prone to all kinds of illness.  Those who feel they have to put on a mask to fit in to Mormon culture are going to be less healthy, first emotionally, then physically.  There has to be room in the culture for a diverse array of people to feel comfortable being their authentic selves.  We literally kill people when we don’t accept them for who they are.  And last I checked, “Thou shalt not kill” was still one of the top ten no-nos.

So, is Mormonism more or less healthy than other faiths or about the same?  Are there times when someone should leave the church for health reasons?  How can we make church healthier for all?  Discuss.

I mean, sure, we’ve already heard from reliable sources that Mormons like professions, but what is the deal?

What Mormons Like often spins off aspects of note in Mormon culture in a lighthearted way, but the scary thing is that I usually understand where the guy is coming from — for the vast majority of his posts, when I read them, I think, “I can definitely see that.”

And so, as he notes that Dentistry seems to be the true calling of Mormons, I can’t help but agree. My home ward is a military ward, and generally, we can count on having four or five dentists moving in or moving out at any time of the year (and I guess that’s not even counting the permanent dentists and the dentists in the other ward in the area).

Really, I can only ask, what is the deal?

I guess it probably isn’t just the easy access to medicine. But it does seem spot on that the careers that seem to be popular in the church 1) have big bucks (or big buck potential, 2) a useful skill, and 3) some entrepreneurialism. I can understand that dentistry is a useful skill…but still. Really?

The source of power?

Could it be that LDS culture has such a premium on that standardized cleancut missionary look (complete with perfect smile) that makes dentistry seem more appealing? It seems kinda silly to conjecture on that alone.

I guess the question really should be to ask if this isn’t just my imagination. In your anecdotal evidence, do there seem to be a disproportionate number of dentists? What are other careers that seem to stick out in your mind? Are there any official statistics about popular jobs for church members?

If you are a dentist and LDS, can you say that the church had anything to do with it? Why dentistry? This isn’t necessarily 20 questions, but it certainly appears to be an odd social phenomenon.

Before you give your opinion, here are some more specific questions to consider about an actual government with Jesus at the helm:

1. What kind of government.
   • Will the earth be a theocracy (like Iran) or will there be separation of church and state like in the U.S. (except the deep South and Utah)?
   • Would Jesus be subject to elections?  What if He got voted out?
   • Will there still be dissenting opinions?  Different political parties?  What if someone disagrees with Jesus?  What would He do?  Go all “cleanse the temple” on the Senate?
   • Is Jesus a Democrat or Republican  (remember he hung out with both poor people and tax collectors)?  Will He cut through pork barrel spending with a double-edged sword of fire?  Is Jesus good with money (wasn’t He keeping His money in a live fish last time)?
2. Role of churches.
   • Will there be a “church” during the millenium?  Why would there be?  Isn’t the church like the babysitter while the Savior’s away?  Remember, there wasn’t a church per se when He was on the earth.  He created a movement.  The disciples created a church to keep the movement going and provide support to new followers.  At the least, He could reduce the three-hour block.
   • Will there be various churches then?  Will some be non-Christian?
   • Will there be a mass conversion to one faith or at least Christianity?  Will there be apostates after that?
3. Culture.
   • What kind of shows would be on TV?  Would everyone be self-censoring?  Would there be less taking of the name of God in vain?
   • Would WWJD shirts & caps be irrelevant or an even bigger seller now that we know the answer to the question?
4. Jesus as a Leader.  What kind of political leader would Jesus be?
   • A great communicator (if you have ears to hear anyway).
   • Your basic delegator.
   • He might host some amazing parties (His reputation as a wine-bibber), but none of the cool people will be invited (expect guys in tin foil hats and aging hookers based on His friends the first time around).
   • Would He do interviews with Larry King?  Stephen Colbert?

So, do you take this idea literally?  If so, what do you think it will be like?  Do you fall into the “it will be so different than things are now that we can’t fathom it” (because if so, I guess I would just say “people are people”)?  Discuss.

Today, February 3, 2009 is the 1-year anniversary of the calling of President Thomas S. Monson as the 16th President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  What has happened in the Church during that period?  Has there been any major changes, events, revelations?

 LDS Church News has a specific page devoted to the first year of President Monson’s leadership as President of the Church. For that reason, I invite you to look through it as I will not repeat what was written. Also, the Salt Lake Tribune has an article by Peggy Fletcher Stack entitled, “LDS leader’s first year: Observers say Monson barely budged from the Hinckley plan“

In summary, President Monson dedicated 5 temples, announced 10 new Temples, presided over two General Conferences, and spoke in an number of other meetings. But, no new policies were established, no major revelations were received and the growth of the Church is steady.

However, the one of the most controversial things the Church as ever gotten involved with occurred on his watch; the fight in California over Proposition 8.  To some, it was a stunning encroachment on civil liberties and a wrong-headed involvement of the Church in political affairs. To others, it was nothing more than the Church defending traditional marriage and engaging in a coalition with other like-minded organizations.  The fact the Church seemed better organized, its people more engaged with time and money is beside the point.

I personally will not forget the address President Monson gave on Sunday Morning during April Conference. His first official address (he spoke in the Priesthood session) as President. While on one hand it was vintage Monson, there was, for me, a detectable difference. He was now the Lord’s Prophet on the earth.  And he can wiggle his ears too! 

Although there are sure to be many readers who are already familiar with the Spaulding manuscript theory, I thought there might be a lot of folks out there who, like me until somewhat recently, still haven’t heard one of the most entertaining stories in Mormon (and anti-Mormon) history.

How and when did the Spaulding manuscript theory originate, and what is it meant to explain?

The Spaulding manuscript theory was first advanced in 1833 by Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, an excommunicated Mormon and known opponent of the Church. Hurlbut’s theory was disseminated more widely in 1834 when it was published in the “anti-Mormon” book Mormonism Unvailed by E.D. Howe. For more than a century afterwards, numerous authors of exposés on Mormonism embraced the Spaulding manuscript theory to explain the “true origins” of significant portions of the Book of Mormon.

In short, the Spaulding manuscript theory attempts to explain where the “real” authors of the Book of Mormon (presumably Joseph Smith and/or Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdrey) got the elaborate historical narrative found in the Book of Mormon (e.g., the central characters like Lehi, Nephi, and Moroni, and the alleged “historic accounts” of centuries of wars and bloodshed). To be clear, the Spaulding manuscript theory is not offered to explain the true origin of the religious aspects of the Book of Mormon. Rather, it is suggested that the “real” authors of the Book of Mormon used the Spaulding manuscript’s main plot, central characters, and setting, and then mixed in religious sermons and doctrines from other sources.

Who was Solomon Spaulding?

Solomon Spaulding was born in Connecticut in 1761, graduated from Dartmouth in 1785, and spent three or four years as a Congregationalist minister before leaving the ministry and embarking on a series of unsuccessful business ventures in New York and Ohio. He lived in Conneaut, OH during the time when he is alleged to have written his manuscript. He left Ohio and relocated to Amity, PA in 1812 , where he died in 1816.

What are the main assertions of the Spaulding manuscript theory?

Proponents of the Spaulding manuscript theory allege that Spaulding became fascinated with the numerous Indian burial mounds he had encountered in the Ohio area, and that he wrote a historical romance to explain the existence of the mound builders on the American continent, which he allegedly entitled “Manuscript Found”. Spaulding supposedly read lengthy portions of his manuscript to his family and neighbors on a frequent basis such that they became quite familiar with his story and could recall its details even decades later.

Spaulding allegedly took his “Manuscript Found” to the printing office of a Mr. Patterson in Pittsburgh, PA some time around 1812 with hopes of profiting from his historical romance. But, as the theory goes, the alleged manuscript was never published for unknown reasons. The theory further alleges that Sidney Rigdon somehow acquired the Spaulding manuscript from Patterson’s printing office in Pittsburgh sometime thereafter. Spaulding died in 1816, four years after he allegedly deposited the manuscript with Patterson.

What is the principal “evidence” for and against the proposition that Solomon Spaulding authored a manuscript similar to the Book of Mormon?

To be clear, Solomon Spaulding is not the source of the “Solomon manuscript theory.” Spaudling never claimed that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarism of something he’d previously written. Of course, he could never have made such a claim because he died in 1816, fourteen years before the Book of Mormon was published. By the time the Solomon Spaulding theory was advanced in Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed in 1834, Spaulding had been dead for 18 years. Thus, in pointing to Solomon Spaulding as the “real” source of the Book of Mormon’s historical narrative, Dr. Hurlbut and Mr. Howe point us to a dead man who can neither confirm nor deny their claims.

Of course, there are other ways of confirming whether Spaulding did, in fact, write a manuscript similar to the Book of Mormon. If Spaulding was as fond of reading his manuscript to his neighbors as Howe claims, one would expect to find at least just one item of correspondence or document created during Spaulding’s lifetime in which either Spaulding, a family member, or a friend, neighbor or business associate referred to his manuscript or recited at least a few of its details. But no such luck. The proponents of the Solomon Spaulding theory do not provide a single scrap of paper pre-dating the Book of Mormon to support the notion that Spaulding ever wrote a manuscript similar to the Book of Mormon.

Additionally, if Spaulding had in fact deposited his manuscript with Mr. Patterson at his printing office, one would expect Patterson to confirm that fact. But he didn’t. To the contrary, when asked, Patterson reported he could not recall any such manuscript being brought to his printing office for publication. Proponents of the Spaulding manuscript theory counter that Patterson indicated his printing business was managed by a Mr. Harrison Lambdin at the time in question, and that it is therefore not surprising that Patterson would not recall the manuscript. However, this retort has two problems: first, that the Patterson-Lambdin partnership was not formed until 1818, two years after Spaulding’s death; and second, that Lambdin could not confirm that Spaulding ever brought a manuscript to Patterson’s printing office because Lambdin died in 1825, almost a decade before Mormonism Unvailed advanced the Spaulding manuscript theory. Thus, in pointing to Lambdin as the printer who received Spaulding’s manuscript at Patterson’s office, proponents of the theory again point us to a dead man who can neither confirm nor deny their allegations. Furthermore, when Lambdin’s widow was asked about the matter years later, she reported never having heard of any such manuscript being deposited with her husband, and refuted the suggestion that Lambdin ever knew or associated with a Sidney Rigdon.

So if there is no first-hand testimony from Spaulding himself, no testimony from the printers Patterson or Lambdin about any Spaulding manuscript being deposited with them, and no documentary evidence pre-dating the Book of Mormon indicating that Spaulding ever wrote such a manuscript, what “evidence” do the proponents of the Spaulding manuscript theory rely upon?

The primary “evidentiary basis” for the Spaulding manuscript theory is a collection of statements given by eight persons who claimed to be Spaulding’s neighbors in Conneaut, OH. These eight statements were collected by the excommunicated-Mormon Dr. Hurlbut in 1833, who later sold them for $500 to E.D. Howe, who then cited them in his Mormonism Unvailed the following year. Thus, it should be noted the primary “evidence” upon which the Solomon Spaulding theory relies, i.e., these eight statements by Ohio residents, was collected twenty-one years after Spaulding left Ohio (where he allegedly wrote his manuscript and read it to friends and family), seventeen years after Spaulding’s death, and three years after the Book of Mormon was published.

The eight statements gathered by Dr. Hurlbut in 1833 were obtained from Spaulding’s brother John, Spaulding’s sister-in-law, Spaulding’s business partner in Ohio, an alleged employee of Spaulding, and four of Spaulding’s neighbors in Conneaut, OH. Taken together, the statements make the following main claims: (1) that Spaulding had read them portions of a manuscript he authored prior to his death (and therefore prior to the Book of Mormon’s publication); (2) that the manuscript was about a group of people who left Israel and came to the Americas, and who were purportedly the ancestors of the American Indians; (3) that these immigrants to the New World split into two main groups and engaged in centuries of warfare, resulting in large heaps of bodies that account for the Indian burial mounds and fortifications found throughout the country; (4) that the main characters in the manuscript were named Lehi, Nephi, Laban, Mormon, Moroni, etc.; (5) that the manuscript was written in an old Bible-like style with frequent usage of the phrase “And it came to pass”; and (6) that Spaulding wrote the manuscript such that it could pass as a believable, genuine history, and that he hoped to profit from it someday.

It should be noted that the three “witnesses” to the Spaulding manuscript who were closest to Spaulding, (i.e., Spaulding’s brother, sister-in-law, and business partner), were probably in their 70′s when Howe obtained their statements. (One would presume that Spaulding’s brother, sister-in-law, and business partner were all of roughly the same age has he, and Spaulding would have been 72 when Dr. Hurlbut collected their statements.) Thus, although it is certainly possible that Spaulding’s brother, sister-in-law, and business partner were intentionally lying about the existence of a manuscript authored by Spaulding, it is also possible that Hurlbut, who was a known opponent of Mormonism, suggested certain “recollections” to these elderly individuals when obtaining their statements. Moreover, the statement obtained from Spaulding’s sister-in-law begins with a disclaimer about her memory, stating: “The lapse of time which has intervened prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his [Spaulding's] writings.”

The greatest strength of the Spaulding theory is the argument that eight persons would not intentionally lie about Spaulding reading them stories similar to those found in the Book of Mormon. But interestingly, the statements obtained from Spaulding’s brother, sister-in-law, and business partner raise as many questions as they purport to answer. For example: If Spaulding had pinned his hopes of financial recovery on the manuscript, why did Spaulding’s family not attempt to follow up with the printer Patterson about the status of the proposed publication of Spaulding’s manuscript after his death? And if they were so convinced and outraged by the Book of Mormon’s plagiarism of Spaulding’s manuscript, why did Spaulding’s family members never pursue any legal remedies against Smith, et al.?

In the next several decades following the publication of Mormonism Unvailed, additional “witnesses” to the Spaulding manuscript surfaced here and there, each making claims similar to those found in the eight original statements obtained by Dr. Hurlbut. Presumably, the most credible of these were the alleged statements of Spaulding’s widow and only child. In 1839, a Reverend in Massachusetts claimed to have obtained a statement from Spaulding’s widow in which she affirmed the general claims made by the other eight persons, and related a story where her neighbors and brother-in-law in Ohio had become outraged when Mormon missionaries read them portions of the Book of Mormon, which they all immediately recognized as being taken from Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found.” Mormons researching the story report that Spaulding’s widow denied making several of the statements that the Massachusetts Reverend had attributed to her.

Then in 1880, a newspaper reporter published what was claimed to be a statement from Spaulding’s only child, in which she claimed to remember her father reading his manuscript to her when she was six years of age, and claimed to remember it containing names like Mormon, Moroni, Lamanite, and Nephi. Of course, the reliability of this statement is in doubt because it comes from someone in her 70′s reciting events that occurred when she was six years old.

The other additional statements that surfaced from persons purporting to have heard Spaulding’s stories suffer from the same reliability problem because those statements were given by elderly persons in the 1870′s-1880′s, some sixty and seventy years after Spaulding allegedly deposited his manuscript with Patterson’s office.

Even more curious are the theories about how Joseph Smith, Sidney Ridgon, or Oliver Cowdery might have obtained Spaulding’s manuscript from Patterson’s printing office. For it is not enough to allege Spaulding wrote a manuscript; one must also account for how the alleged “real” authors of the Book of Mormon got their hands on that manuscript. But the “evidence” supporting the theories about how Smith, Rigdon, or Cowdery would have gained access to the Spalding manuscript is even more tenuous than the evidence that Spaulding ever wrote a manuscript similar to the Book of Mormon.

What if the Solomon Spaulding theory were advanced in a court of law today?

As someone who has done a fair share of copyright infringement litigation, I can tell you that if someone filed a lawsuit alleging that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from the Spaulding manuscript, that person would at a minimum be required to prove: (1) the existence of a manuscript authored by Spaulding before the Book of Mormon was published; (2) that the publisher(s) of the Book of Mormon had access that Spaulding manuscript; and (3) that the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding manuscript share more than just generic similarities (e.g., a group of people migrating from the Old World to the New World). Of course, proponents of the Spaulding theory would fail in their claim because they have never been able to produce the manuscript bearing more than generic similarities to the Book of Mormon, nor have they been able to conclusively demonstrate that the publishers of the Book of Mormon had access to such a manuscript. (For example, although they claim it was Rigdon who obtained the Spaulding manuscript from Patterson’s printing office, there is no evidence that Rigdon and Joseph Smith met each other before the Book of Mormon’s publication.)

In the end, the Spaulding manuscript theory amounts to a tale about significant portions of the Book of Mormon being stolen from a manuscript that is nowhere to be found, purportedly authored by a man who died 17 years before the theory was ever concocted, and supposedly left in the hands of a printer who disclaims having ever seen it. And that’s the story that’s supposed to be far more convincing than the idea of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from a golden book that was received from, and returned to, an angel?

Post Script: The Curious Case of Solomon Spaulding Gets Curiouser — Spaulding’s “Manuscript Found” is Found!

As it turns out, Solomon Spaulding did write a manuscript after all. In 1884, a Mr. L.L. Rice found a manuscript authored by Spaulding amongst the many files he’d inherited when he purchased the Painesville Telegraph from E.D. Howe, author of Mormonism Unvailed. Howe had reportedly obtained the manuscript from Dr. Hurlbut while doing research for his exposé on Mormonism; it is known that Howe paid Hurlbut $500 for the eight affidavits he had collected. Spaulding’s widow reported that Hurlbut had asked permission to search Spauldings papers for the long lost manuscript, offering her half the publication proceeds if he could locate it. She agreed and Hurlbut actually found amongst Spaulding’s papers a manuscript of about 45,000 words, about one-sixth the length of the Book of Mormon. But there was just one major problem for Hurlbut: the manuscript was obviously not the original source material for the Book of Mormon. Instead of containing a story about a group of Israelites coming to the Americas with names like Lehi, Nephi, etc., the manuscript contained a story about a group of Romans who were blown off course while sailing to Great Britain and landed in the Americas, and consisted mainly of lengthy descriptions about the customs of the various Indian tribes the Roman party encountered.

When Hurlbut located the Spaulding manuscript, he reportedly showed it to the persons who had previously sworn affidavits about the similarities between Spaulding’s work and the Book of Mormon. But when confronted with the Spaulding manuscript’s obvious lack of similarity to the Book of Mormon, rather than recognizing and admitting the obvious possibility that they had “misrecollected” the true nature of Spaulding’s manuscript, they suggested Spaulding must have also authored a “second manuscript” similar to the Book of Mormon. Of course, the “second manuscript” was nowhere to be found, and over a century later, no “second manuscript” has ever been located.

Incredibly, the theory about a long-lost “second manuscript” kept the Spaulding manuscript theory alive and well amongst opponents of Mormonism for several decades to come. Eventually, though, even authors of critical histories of Mormonism recognized that the Spaulding manuscript theory lacked any credible basis, such as Fawn Brodie who thoroughly dismantled and dismissed the theory in her 1945 book No Man Knows My History. But you can decide for yourself, because thanks to the wonders of the Internet and the RLDS church (which subsequently published Spaulding’s manuscript to refute the Spaulding manuscript theory), you can read Spaulding’s controversial manuscript here.

Poor Solomon Spaulding. One wonders how he’d feel knowing his name is still remembered 195 years after his death simply because someone used it to advance one of the most preposterous theories to date about the supposed true origins of the Book of Mormon.

* * * * *

SOURCES:

Howe, E.D., (1834) Mormonism Unvailed Painesville, Telegraph Press.

Kidder, D.P. (1842) Mormonism and the Mormons New York, Carlton & Lanham, pub.

Patterson, Jr., Robert (1882) Who Wrote the Book of Mormon? Philadelphia, L.H. Everts & Co.

Brodie, Fawn M. (1963) No Man Knows my History New York: Alfred A. Knoft

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?

• 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.

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

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

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

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

Why is Joseph the unsung hero of this story?  While he is not a principle player (the mother & child take those roles), he is also not one of the quirky supporting cast members to this scene.  Among all the players, he is the one person who had the most power to create a very different narrative to this story.  Consider the following from Matthew:

18  Now the ^bbirth of Jesus Christ was ^con this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.  (“Before they came together” could mean marriage or consummation, or in other words, Joseph knew he wasn’t the father.  “She was found” also makes it sound as though he discovered it because it was evident rather than through a spontaneous confession.)

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick ^aexample, was ^bminded to ^cput her away privily.  (IOW, he wasn’t buying this “found with child of the HG” story, but he was also a mensch.  He could have been outraged, humiliated, veangeful, etc.  There are frankly some current examples of women in the middle east in similar situations that end quite differently.)

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a ^adream, saying, Joseph, thou son of ^bDavid, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the ^cHoly Ghost.  (Now I’ve had some pretty cool dreams, but this is a rather important matter to rely on a dream.  He didn’t even have a visitation, just a dream.  Surely he had plenty of times he had to doubt this.)

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his ^aname ^bJESUS: for he shall ^csave his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 ^aBehold, a ^bvirgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his ^cname ^dEmmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  (So, Joseph is basically marrying into a situation in which he, the man in a male-dominated society, has to play the role of father to a kid that isn’t his and he gets no say in naming the kid and even his say in how the kid will be raised is questionable.  Plus, a bunch of pressure because of who the kid’s Father is.  This took a lot of faith and humility.)

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his ^awife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her ^afirstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.  (So, a delayed honeymoon as well–more inconvenience to Joseph–just to make it totally clear who the Father was.)

The main difficulties with this lesson are:

1. Lack of context.  The letters (snippets) are presented without any context of the rocky relationship that existed between Joseph and Emma.  Although his polygamy was a sore topic with many ups and downs, none of that is mentioned to contextualize the relationship in the letters.  There were other points of discord between them that are also not mentioned.  It only references things like where they were and whether Emma was pregnant at the time or if a child had been sick.
2. No doctrine.  There is no doctrinal content whatsoever, just snippets of letters.
3. “Gag me with a spoon” factor.  Like all letters from this era, the language is flowery and exaggerated.  The style of writing is clichéd and designed to obfuscate meaning through emotionalism rather than to communicate directly and clearly.  What’s next?  A walk through “Cupid’s Grove” with Abigail and John Adams?  I know this kind of stuff is really appealing to some people; it’s just not my thing.  I’m sort of glad we quit signing letters “Your humble servant.”
4. Weak Application.  The letters are personal with no inherent universal application.  That, coupled with the ambiguous state of the Smith marriage (which is neatly avoided), and the nature of letters from this period (the sentimentality) greatly reduces their applicability.  Likening the scriptures unto ourselves is one thing; likening letters between Joseph and Emma to ourselves is much more difficult, especially with no meaningful context (although in this case, the context would probably make it even more meaningless to current lay members).

There are a few hints at the on-and-off strain in the relationship:

• “And as to yourself, if you want to know how much I want to see you, examine your feelings, how much you want to see me, and judge for yourself.”  (1839)
• “O Emma, … do not forsake me nor the truth, but remember me.”  (1838)

My favorite snippet, that seems much very folksy and personable.  He had a real fondness for that dog:

• “I want you to try to gain time and write to me a long letter and tell me all you can and even if old Major is alive yet and what those little prattlers say that cling around your neck.”  (1839)

Difficulties are naturally presented in highly emotional ways with a religious persecution spin.  There is a desire for the stories to be recast in a way that motivates further religious and familial devotion; for example:

• “Tell them I am in prison that their lives might be saved.”  (1839)

I’ve read a lot of things written in this time period, and I have to wonder.  The following frankly sounds like an oblique reference to a conjugal visit:

• “I take the liberty to tender you my sincere thanks for the two interesting and consoling visits that you have made me during my almost exiled situation. Tongue cannot express the gratitude of my heart, for the warm and true-hearted friendship you have manifested in these things towards me.”  (1842)

The questions provided in the lesson are not tremendously helpful either, but here is the direction I would take it to maximize personal applicability (sticking to the questions in bold).  The below is straight from the manual, except where indicated:

• Briefly review this chapter, noting Joseph Smith’s feelings toward Emma and their children.  What does his example teach about how we should speak and act in our families?  (Don’t write down anything negative?  Don’t express your true feelings in letters?  Accentuate the positive?) What can we learn from Joseph and Emma Smith’s efforts to write to one another and to see one another?  (Very little since there is no context and only one side to the conversation). What are some things you have done to show family members that you love them?
• The Prophet Joseph told Emma that he was “a true and faithful friend to [her] and the children forever,” and he thanked her for her “warm and true-hearted friendship” (pages 242, 246). What can husbands and wives do to nurture their friendship? (Well, if I’m right about the conjugal visit . . .  But seriously, folks.  I think this is a helpful question, and I would just let the sisters discuss.)
• In his letters, Joseph Smith showed trust in Emma, expressing confidence that she would make good decisions and do all she could to take care of the family (page 245). How might such expressions of trust influence the relationship between a husband and a wife?  (You could say he was expressing confidence in her ability to take care of the family in his absence, or you could say he was reminding her of her duties.  Given that he was largely absent, his instructions seem custodial to me and would probably tick me off.  Still, you could just throw out this question to the group about how you can build trust in a marriage, regardless of whether his letters are a good example of that.) How can we build trust in our marriages?
• Read the Prophet Joseph’s message to his children in the second paragraph on page 246. How might it have helped his children to receive this news?  (It made it clear to them that the thing that stood between them and their loving father was the mob.) During times of trial, what can parents do to show their children that they have faith in God?
• Review Joseph Smith’s expressions of trust in God found on pages 243–46. Identify several of these expressions that are particularly touching to you.  How can you apply these truths in your life? (Since this is not presenting “truth,” so much as faith, I would repurpose the question to “How can trials strengthen your faith in God?” which I realize is too broad and a lot like the last question.)

Since there is not a lot of meat here (which could be the upside of this lesson–it’s different from the other lessons), I will mention a few other lesson ideas I’ve seen bandied about (all of which sound pretty good to me at filling the allotted time):

• Have a man come in to read the letter snippets so people can hear them in a “Joseph” voice.  He could even tie his tie in a bow and put his shirt collars up in true 1830s fashion, if you are daring.
  
• Print the snippets out on old-style parchment paper with a seal and have sisters read them aloud.  A little crafty for my taste, but you could do it.
• Take time at the end of class to write a letter to loved one(s) sharing your faith, love, and trust.  Perhaps a little “precious,” but again, there’s time here to be filled.

That is the best I’ve got, gang.  Let me know your thoughts on what you think works best for this lesson.

Witches are people who don’t fit in our notion of society (or any group of people to which we belong).  Witch-hunters are those who feel obligated to protect that society from these harmful individuals.  So, at a given time, in a given society, you could be either a witch or a witch hunter.

There are a few basic steps all witch hunters must follow.

1. Know that there are witches out there.  And they must be stopped.  Those witches may not even know how dangerous they are, which is why you are really just doing them a favor.  Remember, the world is a black and white place with danger lurking at every corner.
2. Find the witch.  Once you know there ARE witches, it should be really easy to spot them.  They are not like you.  (It’s much harder to hunt someone you identify with because you might get to know them as a person and find you have much in common).  Therefore, those who are not like you are probably evil and need to be corrected.  It’s your responsibility to “help” them fit the mold, even if you have to kill them to do it.  They will thank you for it.  Also, they brought this on themselves.  Tip:  If you are having a hard time finding the witches, you need to go back to Step 1 and try again.
3. “Out” the witch.  People will thank you for exposing the hidden danger.  You are really just performing a community service, after all.
4. Bolster your authority.  Some people just don’t have your powers of discernment, or might question your judgments when you are just performing a much needed service to others by exposing the danger.  So, be sure to surround yourself with like-minded individuals.  Be sure to emphasize your pedigree or credentials as a witch hunter, and make it clear that whoever is against you is really just allowing evil to flourish.
5. Hunt for some more! Now that you have some success and a taste for blood, keep going!  Remember, you are doing what’s right, and others are counting on you.  You are making a difference, and the only cost is a few witches who brought this on themselves anyway.

So, what can you do if you are one of the unlucky “witches”?

• Humor the witch hunters.  Some of the things they are saying are correct, even if some is misinformed.  Find the mutual purpose between your view and theirs and encourage agreement where you can find it.
• Let go of being right.  Just give it up.  You can’t fight City Hall.  Witch hunters invariably work at City Hall, BTW.  The witch hunter’s primary need is to be right and sustain that black & white worldview.  Don’t play that game.  You can’t fight their “right” with your “right.”  You’ll both end up wrong.
• Accomodate reasonable requests.  Be as flexible as you can.  Do anything you are asked that is not harmful to yourself or others.  Obviously, if they ask you to tie yourself to a stake while they go get some wood, well, that’s just not reasonable.
• See the person behind the witch hunter.  People create villains when they are frightened and feel powerless.  Maybe they are scared of change.  Maybe they are afraid of being irrelevant.  Maybe they have spooked themselves with tales of the boogeyman lurking at every corner.  Making themselves a mighty “hunter” helps them to feel like they have control.  It’s sad really.  Find a way to love that person, to “pray for those that persecute you.”
• Appeal to the citizenry.  Before you get dunked in the lake, you probably have a chance to appeal to either a judge or the mob of fellow citizens.  Remember the scene in Monty Python’s Holy Grail?  Point out the absurdity (if there are absurdities) of the accusation.  Point back to the reality and facts.  Appeal to the witnesses.  If you can kindly marginalize the witch hunter as a nut job, you may not be burned alive or drowned by well-meaning concerned citizens.
• Don’t accuse your accusor.  They call it the high road because it’s not the same level as the low road.  The high road is less muddy because it’s closer to the sun.  It’s cleaner because so few people travel it.  And bonus!  There are no witch hunters on the high road.
• Don’t get offended or become bitter. The witch hunter is just one person, not everyone.  Even the others who didn’t stop the witch-hunt were probably just trying to figure out what was really going on, just doing the best they could.  Remember:  “You’re smart enough, you’re good enough, and doggone it!  People like you!”

So, for all you witches out there, good luck.  And for all you hunters, be careful, because this is the witching season!

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”)?

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.