I think what happened is what’s happening in government today, as I see it now, thirty years later.  For example, the Supreme Court is supposed to determine the constitutionality of a law, but very gradually, the Supreme Court starts to make the law.  That’s what is happening to correlation.  Correlation creates nothing.  That’s the process.  It has no authority to make a statement that creates a position or direction.  That’s totally out of harmony with what President McKay set up.  Brother Lee understood that, and carried it out.  Since the 1970s, I’ve seen the drift, where correlation is now telling me, if I write something to get through correlation, “You can’t say that.”  And I write back and say, “Why?”  And they say, “Well, because we think this is the interpretation.”  And I write back and say, “You’re not the interpreter.”…And that’s where we got lost.  Today, I see correlation, like the Supreme Court, becoming more and more the originator of the thought, rather than the coordinator of the thought….So, while I think correlation is good, I think it’s gone past its original commission.

I think one of the reasons why the church has decided to focus on “the basics” is because it is the “safe” thing to do.  Correlation doesn’t want to deal with controversial theology.  It seems to me that Correlation is all about “dumbing down” the curriculum, because it is easier to deal with.  It is much harder to deal with controversial comments from previous leaders.  So, in order to be safe, correlation removes such hard to explain topics.  (I mean, who can really argue about the need to pray more, read the scriptures, do service, etc?)  Hence, spiritual growth isn’t nearly as vibrant as it used to be.  Only milk is served, without meat, causing spiritual malnutrition.

So, what do you make of Correlation?  Do Paul Dunn’s comments bother you?  Is Correlation too much of a good thing?  Do you think Correlation can ever be restrained, or reversed?

In one of my previous posts, a few commenters seemed to try to condemn a mentally ill man for killing a bishop, but I think we should not be so quick to judge.  In discussing suicide, Lund says that General Authorities have often counseled people that we should not judge the mentally ill.

I have attended several funerals in my lifetime because I’ve worked primarily with the young people of the church where some of them have committed suicide.  On several of those occasions a General Authority has been there to speak.  I was interested as I listened to the funeral sermon how similar their counsel was in every case, because in every case there was a suicide they said, ‘don’t judge the soul’ and do not assume that they will be in the Telestial Kingdom even though they have taken their life.  You have no right to make that judgment.  Only God can make that judgment.’  I’m paraphrasing several actual talks.  We don’t have the right to make that judgment and we don’t know.  We don’t know the state of mind or the spiritual condition or the things that brought that about and only God can make that judgment.

I am uncomfortable in dealing with the mentally ill.  I previously blogged about a man I home teach with some serious mental illness.  While he is friendly with me and seems to be taking his medications, recently he took medication with beer, and ended up in the hospital.  He does seem to share some similarities to the man who killed the bishop in California.  Maybe I’m just paranoid, but he makes me nervous even though we get along well.

What can we do to help the mentally ill effectively?  How can we deal with them effectively without harshly judging them?

BYU has banned caffeinated soft drinks on campus for years.  I work for a few large national cable tv networks, and when they come to BYU, they often rant that they can’t find a good cup of coffee in Provo, and they are especially perplexed by the soft drink restrictions.  Often these guys fly in on red-eye flights, and a boost of caffeine is very helpful to keeping them alert during football and basketball broadcasts.  (I took one of those red-eye flights just this weekend, and drank some cheap cola to keep me awake.)

So, Coke and Pepsi are sold on campus, but without caffeine.  I find it an odd situation, and I don’t have much to say when these non-LDS people rant about banning caffeine on campus.  But it appears that President David O McKay was a bit more liberal on some of these Word of Wisdom issues.  We all know the admonition to “avoid the appearance of evil”, yet President McKay was more liberal than some on the subject of Coke.  Prince describes a situation where President McKay actually requested Coke.  From page 23, (emphasis in book)

During the intermission of a theatrical presentation, his host offered to get refreshments: “His hearing wasn’t very good, and I got right down in front of him and I said, ‘President McKay, what would you like to drink?  All of our cups say Coca Cola on them because of our arrangement with Coca Cola Bottling, but we have root beer and we have orange and we have Seven-Up.  What would you like to drink?’  And he said, ‘I don’t care what it says on the cup, as long as there is Coke in the cup.”⁸⁷ McKay’s point was simple and refreshing:  Don’t get hung up on the letter of the law to the point where you squeeze all of the spirit out of life.

But that’s not all.  Prince describes an interesting story concerning rum cake that President McKay ate. Also from page 23,

At a reception McKay attended, the hostess served rum cake.  ”All the guests hesitated, watching to see what McKay would do.  He smacked his lips and began to eat.”  When one guest expostulated, “‘But President McKay, don’t you know that is rum cake?’  McKay smiled and reminded the guest that the Word of Wisdom forbade drinking alcohol, not eating it.”⁸⁶

Some people have tried to add chocolate as being prohibited by the Word of Wisdom.  President McKay chided an apostle about this stance.  From page 23,

he gently chided Apostle John A. Widtsoe, whose wife advocated such a rigid interpretation of the Word of Wisdom as to proscribe chocolate because of the stimulants it contained, saying “John, do you want to take all the joy of of life?’”⁸⁵

Is anyone else surprised by these stories?  Do you think Mormons will ever relax to President McKay’s position on the Word of Wisdom?  When I was first married, my wife surprised me and cooked with wine.  Do others cook with wine, or do you avoid it for “the appearance of evil”?

Good or evil.  Material or immaterial.  Mind or matter.  Spiritual or physical. Even male or female. As this article from the Jewish Virtual Library describes, many of these “dualism” classifications have been used as the bases of philosophy and religions since primitive times. They seem to constantly reemerge after being subordinated to religious and philosophical principles of “monism” (oneness or wholeness).

Duality instead has nothing to do with two different aspects of reality.  In contrast, it focuses on recognizing that a single, inseparable “monist” reality does almost always have two (or more) entirely separable “dual” descriptions.  It is the descriptions of reality that are dual — like two languages used to describe the same concept — and not the reality itself.

In a way, duality was the key to the anomaly that sparked the entire quantum revolution in physics at the beginning of the 1900′s.  Light had been understood as electromagnetic waves since the work of James Maxwell, published in 1864.  The existence of such waves was a mathematically required consequence of the basic laws of electricity and magnetism that had been easily verified in the laboratory.

But as the 20th Century dawned, observations about light were beginning to pile up that could not be explained by any wave model.  Instead, depending only on the question an experiment tested, light seemed to betray either wave-like or particle-like behavior. Look for wave properties, and the experiment would find them; look for particle properties, and the experiment would find them instead. Even notions of everyday common sense would break down to maintain the insistence on light being both wave and particle.

Worse, when the wave experiments grew sophisticated enough to be applied to good-old-rock-solid matter, matter showed exactly the same stubborn insistence on being both particle and wave-like, too.  Everything in the material world turned out to exhibit the properties of these seemingly contradictory physical models.  Reality could not be so neatly compartmentalized according to the mental constructs humanity had available.

For a time, there was even a trendy word to describe things — “wavacle” — until people realized that giving something a new name didn’t mean we understood it any better.  Quantum mechanics, the science that developed out of these early shocks to our conceptual system, has only one reality.  But it can be described in at least two mathematical languages: the mathematical language of waves, and the mathematical language of “matrices”.

The languages were proven to be translatable from one to another before 1930, and so they must always make exactly the same predictions.  But the value in the notion of duality is that — just as some things are easy to say in German that are extraordinarily difficult to say in Japanese, and vice versa — the difficulty in making predictions in one description is easy for some situations, yet impossibly hard in the other description.  And in some other situation, the utility of the two descriptions is completely reversed.  Scientists needed two conceptually different languages to describe this one reality in which we live.

New examples of duality showed up with increasing frequency as people began to appreciate the explanatory power of the approach.  Some of the dualities that have been recognized are even more bizarre than the wave-particle duality.

Many of today’s best candidate theories for “quantum gravity” that would unite relativity and quantum mechanics into a “theory of everything” are collectively known as “string theory”.  They often have a property called “T-duality”.  In particular, T-dual theories predict that a universe, such as ours appears to be – of vast extent and expanding in size – is absolutely indistinguishable from an infinitesimally small universe which is shrinking toward nothingness. The laws of physics would dictate that exactly the same electrical and gravitational signals would enter our brains in either case.

If these string theories are correct, large and small are alternative languages to describe the same reality.  In fact, for all we can tell, we could all be living in an ultramicroscopic reality right now, with our brains arbitrarily choosing to interpret things so that the universe appears infinite in extent.

Then there’s the “holographic principle”. This idea seems to suggest that there are deep connections between modern information theory — the science that underlies telecommunications, including the internet — and the structure of spacetime itself. In addition to the way we describe reality, there appears to be an entirely equivalent way to describe it using one less spatial dimension. There are even reports that an unexpected effect predicted by the second description has been seen in equipment accidentally optimized for its detection.

So duality is not going away from physics anytime soon, regardless of what the philosophers and theologians have to say about monism versus dualism. Might it be fruitful for the theologians to consider what the concept of duality has to add to their debate?

In a way, duality as the existence of multiple descriptions of a single reality, Jesus Christ – “fully man, yet fully God” — is almost too obvious within Christian history. Indeed, the connection between the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost thrown in as a third description for good measure, is another application ripe for exploration.

However, what I’d like to explore in this and future posts is the question of whether and where we can replace the notion of dualism between the physical and spiritual in Restoration theology with the notion of duality, so that we can begin to conceptualize the physical and spiritual realms not as separate arenas of reality, but as two translatable descriptions of a single all-encompassing reality.

If the physical and spiritual are governed by principles of duality, not dualism, then things we do on earth may not just affect what happens in heaven, they may actually be the things that happen in heaven, and vice versa.

For example, in LDS theology, certain significant acts are directly sealed — made spiritually real and binding — through covenants marked by rites, while in CofChrist theology, ordinances are viewed as helps in the physical realm for spiritual purposes. But what if reality is put together to be more than these options? What if every moment of life is inherently sealed into the spiritual realm? If every relationship we enhance here is enhanced there. If every relationship we marginalize here is automatically diminished there as surely as gravity drags us toward the earth?

And what, from the other perspective, if the spiritual is acting as well in an ever present way, to seal the purposes of God into the physical realm?

Please pray for his family.

D&C 137 records a vision of Joseph Smith “in the temple at Kirtland, Ohio, January 21, 1836. HC 2: 380–381. The occasion was the administration of the ordinances of the endowment as far as they had then been revealed.” [Preface].  There are 2 important pieces of Mormon doctrine to consider here:  (1) baptism for the dead, and (2) children that die before the age of accountability (and baptism at age 8 ) will inherit the Celestial Kingdom.  Since it is a short section, let me quote it entirely.  This section is only in the LDS version of the D&C, but other accounts of this revelation can be found in the History of the Church.

1 THE heavens were opened upon us, and I beheld the celestial kingdom of God, and the glory thereof, whether in the body or out I cannot tell.

2 I saw the transcendent beauty of the gate through which the heirs of that kingdom will enter, which was like unto circling flames of fire;

3 Also the blazing throne of God, whereon was seated the Father and the Son.

4 I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold.

5 I saw Father Adam and Abraham; and my father and my mother; my brother Alvin, that has long since slept;

6 And marveled how it was that he had obtained an inheritance in that kingdom, seeing that he had departed this life before the Lord had set his hand to gather Israel the second time, and had not been baptized for the remission of sins.

7 Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God;

8 Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom;

9 For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts.

10 And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

Since God is the ultimate judge, and “who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God “, the LDS baptize all and let God be the judge.  (I previously discussed baptism for the dead from a non-LDS Irish writer.)

So, this phrase “if they had been permitted to tarry”, got me thinking.  Following my mission, another guy about my age returned home.  I believe he got home on a Thursday and was slated to give his homecoming address on Sunday.  (I’ll call him Ted.)  He went out with some friends on Friday or Saturday night, and was involved in a serious car accident.  Sitting in the back seat, his car was t-boned at an intersection.  The woman sitting next to him was killed, and he received some fairly serious injuries, resulting in a delay of his homecoming address for about a month (which he gave standing on crutches.)

While it is probably a bit morbid to think about, a few people speculated that if he had been killed the day after his mission ended, he was probably very righteous and would have gone straight to the Celestial Kingdom.  After all, he was probably living more righteously at that point in his life than at any other time.

Ted went on to college on the east coast (I stayed in the west), he majored in art, I majored in math, and our paths really never crossed much.  I ran into his parents a few times, and they told me about his art exhibits, but neither one of us really made much of an effort to maintain contact.  Enter Facebook.  I noticed that he was friends with some of my friends, so I thought I would “friend” him and see what he was up to.  To my surprise, he had posted his letter of resignation from the LDS church.  There were many messages congratulating him for his courageous decision.

So, it got me thinking, what happens to those that perhaps died on a mission or similar circumstance, but “if they had been permitted to tarry”, they might have become wicked.  (I’m not saying Ted is wicked—I’m not the judge, but just saying, “what if”?)  Can we really be so certain of anyone’s final judgment?

I think there may be some truth to that.

But only a little.

Based on my own experience in church, as well as counseling outcome research (i.e. what factors contribute to success in mental health counseling–that’s where the percentages are coming from), I would like to propose the following mini-theory of the four main factors that contribute to the vibrance/dullness/spirituality of our meetings. The percentages aren’t that important as the actual factors though…

Factor #1: The Individual Members (40%)

This includes each individual member (including leaders) and what they bring to the table: their backgrounds, viewpoints, attitudes, individual preparation, chance events in their lives, etc. In a sense, if you don’t have a good experience at a church meeting, you (or just your life or circumstances) may be at least 40% responsible for that outcome. Seems reasonable to me. How prepared are you for the meetings? How prepared are you to receive spiritual promptings or experiences? How prepared are the speakers and teachers? A lot of us can improve on this.

Factor #2: Relationships (30%)

This includes the relationships between the leaders and regular members, and individual friendships in the ward. I know I tend to listen a lot more earnestly (and have better experiences) when a close friend is speaking or giving the lesson. Not that we all need to have close friendships with everyone in the ward, but I believe the better our relationships are, the better our meetings will be. We listen and participate more when we care more. Do we truly have empathy and respect for other people in the ward? Relationships also include a general agreement on the tasks and goals of our meetings.

Factor #3: Techniques (15%)

This is the area that I think gets debated the most, perhaps because it stands out the most: Simplified Gospel Principles manual? Do we have to stick to that? What hymns are we singing? How many? How many talks? What kinds of instruments are allowed? White or blue shirts? Snacks or no snacks in primary? PowerPoint in gospel doctrine? The point here is not that any one of these decisions is necessarily better than other, but to suggest that ultimately whether we decide to allow guitars or harmonicas, ban blue shirts from the sacrament table or ban visual aids from the pulpit, it will not have much influence on the overall outcome. Most techniques or teaching methods that are intended to be edifying will be, equally so.

Factor #4: Faith & Hope (15%)

How much do we really expect out of our meetings? Do we expect to receive spiritual guidance? Do we find hope there?

We get caught up in debates about who is to blame for our meetings. I personally believe that God has granted us the agency to have bad meetings, just as we can exercise our agency to make them great. Let’s be mindful of the various factors that may contribute to the outcomes of our meetings, and what our individual and collective roles are. Let’s make sure WE are prepared when we speak, give lessons, or participate in the music. Let’s work harder at building relationships in our wards, beyond the home-teaching assignment or the sometimes shallow greetings of the ward activity. Let’s put debates about specific techniques in their place–important, but not as much as other factors.

Using this mini-theory, it makes perfect sense why some people, non-members, ex-mormons, and even some active members alike would find the meetings to be boring: They may not be prepared themselves or be a type of person who would enjoy the meetings anyway, they may not have decent relationships with ward members (or may even have poor relationships there), and they may have little hope or expectation in the church. OF COURSE that is going to lead to a generally dull or even negative experience.

• What do you think contributes to a successful and/or spiritual church meeting?
• How much of it is on the individual and how much is on the speaker or teacher, or the institution of the church?
• What do you think of the idea that we are all contributors to our collective experience?
• Do we neglect the powerful influence that interpersonal relationships have on our meetings?

To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The seed is a versatile image and metaphor because it is the start of everything: the start of every life; the start of every endeavor; the start of every idea. The start of every being and the start of every becoming. The 32nd chapter of Alma talks about the Word being a seed, and from there we learn just what we can expect from a single seed.

[Story 1]

The Word is a seed that we must take the chance to plant first, and which, hopefully, if we do plant it, will germinate, sprout and grow, enlarging our souls and enlightening our minds.

In my last post, commenter st1305 wrote that there cannot be faith in a false idea, because faith is not simply belief. Faith, instead, is the application of a belief that enlarges the soul and enlightens the mind, as Alma 32: 34 and 35 also describe. A false idea, he argued, would not enlarge the soul and enlighten the mind. What st1305 wrote was interesting:

This is true for all of the other principles that I apply in my life – chastity, honesty, integrity, temple work, missionary work and a host of other principles in my faith. I know they are true as I have applied them and I see the fruits and they are good.

I saw a distinction between the ideas that st1305 was raising, however. Principles like honesty, integrity and service differ from ones like temple work or tithing in that the former are universal and general, but the latter are specific and particular implementations as found within the church. In some cases, they are rules that at best seek to capture a more general principle.

The LDS church does not have any sort of exclusive claim on a principle like chastity, even if they do have claims to particular stipulations of the law of chastity. But from here is the first question…what is it that enlarges our soul and enlightens our mind? The rule…or the principle?

I believe it is the principle. When we lose sight of the principles for rules, then our faith becomes Pharisaical. Hollow.

A dangerous new thought sprouted forth: wouldn’t we do best to focus on principles without relying so much on rules?

[/Story 1]

Any day now, America will (if the adoption date ever stops pushing back) migrate away from the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) that we have historically used to International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS).

Supporters of IFRS argue that the change will increase comparability of financial statements — instead of comparing apples to oranges, we’ll all be comparing oranges. In addition, since IFRS is more principles-based, IFRS will not encourage abuse of the brightline rules that US GAAP has.

Let me try to explain the difference using a non-accounting example.

[Story 2]

When we drive, we operate under a basic principle: we want our driving experience to be safe. To satisfy this principle, we develop certain rules, such as the speed limit.

US GAAP sets clear and easy-to-understand (that is, “bright line”) speed limits with directly measurable values. A 40 mile per hour speed limit gives everyone a clear boundary — you can be ticketed for going over 40. Some cops may allow some higher speeds to slide, but if you get caught, the rules are clear.

Everyone is justified to go up to 40 mph, and can do so whenever possible with legal protection.

What could be bad about this? How could this possibly be abused? 40 miles per hour isn’t even that fast…

Let’s say that the speed limit is the ultimate rule for speed and you are driving in terrible weather. In this case, couldn’t you see how a simple, clear-cut rule could backfire and fail to establish our principle (and principal) goal of maintaining safety?

…Yet, creating exceptions for every occurrence would just create a tremendous driver’s manual (not to mention street signs!) In the case of accounting scandals, it wouldn’t even work to prevent frauds before they are perpetuated. New rules always are a step behind the crooks.

So what if instead we had no bright line speed limit numbers, but instead we were given the principle, “Drive safely given the environment”? This extreme case highlights the allure of IFRS.

Drivers wouldn’t have a rule to which they could hug close. However, rule enforcers also wouldn’t have a rule to which they could hug close. If a police officer disagreed with you on the optimally safe speed, you would have no bright line precedent of speed limit to back up your case.

In accounting, we have a bit of a different issue. Normally, in a court, you don’t easily win against a police officer. However, in a court, groups can win against the auditor. Additionally, auditors are hired by the firms they audit, so they have (at least) two incentives: 1) to make sure their clients stay in business and 2) to make decisions that are less likely to be challenged in courts. With clear-cut rules, the audit firm can at least defend its decisions both to clients and juries by saying, “We play according to the rules.” But without clear-cut rules, the courts do not have clear-cut rules with which to crucify (or protect), and auditors do not have the mechanism to challenge more fiscally aggressive clients.

So the big push against principles-based accounting is that it too does not prevent against fraud but instead gives ne’er-do-well executives even greater flexibility to report financial information aggressively. Ne’er-do-well execs can argue that really, 80 miles per hour is always safe, no matter the road conditions. In addition, supporters of GAAP note that the P in GAAP already is “principles,” and a balance of clear rules and principles (like the balance of speed limits with principles of safety in less-ideal conditions) is best.

[/Story 2]

[Synthesis]

When I thought about the audit and accounting example, I began to realize that the rules are valuable for inculcating the principles. Sure, sometimes they can be abused (our rules-based accounting did not prevent Enron, and in the aftermath, some research has suggested that technically, no violations of GAAP or auditing standards took place. Enron simply worked creatively and aggressively within the legal boundaries), but in this case we need to balance re-tweak rules for the sake of the principles, not eliminate one or the other.

[/Synthesis]

The next thing I thought about, as a result of thinking about accounting standards, is the fact that there are many sets of accounting standards seeking after the same principles. What comparison can we make with seeds and the Word? You’ll have to stay tuned for next week’s entry!

Trouble in Zion Poster

Kenny Ballantine is in the process of producing a documentary called Trouble in Zion.  The documentary discusses the events leading up to the 1838 Mormon War in Missouri.  It highlights the Extermination Order and Haun’s Mill Massacre, as well as events leading up to these terrible events.  Kenny showed a pre-release version of the film at the Mormon History Association in Independence, Missouri in May, and he is also showing the film at Sunstone here in Salt Lake City in August.  I really enjoyed the film, and highly recommend it.  I thought Kenny was pretty even-handed, and had experts discuss reactions by both Mormons and non-Mormons which escalated the violence.

Following the presentation at the MHA Conference, Ballentine explained that he didn’t want his documentary to look like a Ken Burns documentary.  A fan of comic books, Kenny found a comic book illustrator to show scenes depicting the conflict.  It took me a while to get used to the comic book art, but it is starting to grow on me.  Kenny was kind enough to give me an advanced copy, and I would like to offer some of my impressions about the film and the conflict.  I hope he stops by to answer questions too!

I was really impressed with the lineup of experts Kenny interviewed.  The most famous people include Richard Bushman, LDS assistant historian Richard Turley, CoC Apostle Andrew Bolton, Washington State University Religion and Sociology professor Armand Mauss, and BYU Church History professor Alex Baugh, among an impressive list of guests.  He outlined a series of events leading up to the Hauns Mill Massacre and the Extermination Order.  Here are some of the key events:

• July 20, 1833.  Bishop Partridge is told to leave Jackson County immediately.  He refuses and is tarred and feathered.  Three days later, he signs an agreement to leave the county.  Ballentine doesn’t really address the reasons why the Missourians were upset at the Mormons, though he does mention that the first Missourians wanted slavery to be legal, while the Mormons from the North were generally against slavery.  WW Phelps published an article in the Evening and Morning Star that Mormons wanted to welcome people of all color.  This is the reason the Missourians were upset, which is why they attacked Bishop Partridge, and destroyed the Mormon printing press.  (Joseph was living in Kirtland at this time.)
• July 4, 1838.  Rigdon issued another fiery patriotic sermon (following his “Salt Sermon”) stating that the Mormons and Missourians would wage a “war of extermination…one party or the other”.  It seems the subsequent Extermination Order by Governor Boggs wasn’t quite what Rigdon had in mind.
• Aug 6, 1838 – Mormons in Daviess County were prevented from voting.  The Whig candidate said Mormons were only supposed to live in Caldwell County and should be ineligible to vote.  He was concerned that Mormons would vote for the Democratic Candidate, because Mormons were overwhelming Democrats back then.  A big brawl broke out that has often been called a “battle”.  There were exaggerated rumors that Mormons were killed.
• Aug 19, 1838 – Mormons were expelled from DeWitt, in Daviess County.  Following the election, Missourians decided to expel Mormons.
• Oct 18, 1838 – The Mormons decide to retaliate.  Known as the Daviess Expedition, a group of Danites (a secret Mormon militia group) led an effort to expel Missourians from Gallatin, Millport and Grindstone Fork.   Mormons plundered the property and burned the stores and houses to the ground.
• Oct 24, 1838 – The Battle of Crooked River.  Mormons attack and scatter the Missouri Militia.  Many of the Missouri Militia erroneously believe all others are killed.  Only 1 Missourian was killed, but LDS Apostle David Patten (known as “Captain FearNot”), Danite leader Gideon Carter were both killed; 9 other Mormons were wounded.
• Oct 27, 1838 – Governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order; “the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace…”
• October 30, 1838 – The Hauns Mill Massacre; 18 Mormons are killed, ranging in age from 10-year old Sardius Smith, to 62 year old Thomas McBride.  I would like to quote directly from the film.

“On October 30, 1838, a large group of armed Missourians marched on the small and peaceful Mormon settlement known as Haun’s Mill, primarily in retribution for the Mormon gutting of Daviess County.

…

Amanda [Barnes Smith]’s two little boys, Sardius and Alma had followed their father into the blacksmith shop.  The men had hoped to use the shop like a fortress in the event of an attack.  Instead, it quickly proved to be a death trap.  Seeing no other alternative, the men made a desperate dash for the woods, nearly all of them being gunned down in the process.  Many of the attackers looted, humiliated, and brutalized the wounded and dying.  The oldest victim was 62 year old Thomas McBride who after surrendering his weapon was hacked to death with a corn knife.  And the youngest was 10 year old Sardius Smith.  An enraged Missourian leveled his gun against the small boy’s head, and after proclaiming that ‘nits become lice” pulled the trigger.

Amanda found her husband and 10 year old son Sardius dead, and her 6 year old son’s hip was “all shot to pieces.”Apostle Andrew Bolton of the Community of Christ said,

“Hauns Mill was a tragedy:  17 boys and men are killed and another one dies later from his wounds.  Hauns Mill was a peaceful settlement of Mormons: 15 miles from the main group in Far West, but therefore isolated and vulnerable in the sectarian war that was erupting around them.  Two days before the massacre they reiterated their commitment to live in peace with their neighbors.  This was a genuine, authentic group that didn’t want any part of the violence and suffered horrible tragedy.  The lesson from Haun’s Mill is the innocent get hurt whenever there is human violence.  It spills over, and there is tragedy.

So how does such a tragedy happen?  Why do neighbors turn so quickly on each other?  In my previous post, I discussed the Rwandan Genocide.  Armand Mauss describes the “Moral Panic” in Ballentine’s film.  He is professor emeritus of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University.  He retired in 1999, but continues to be active on Mormon studies.  He is probably most famous for his book The Angel and the Beehive.  The Moral Panic explains how groups turn so quickly violent.

When a society is gripped by a moral panic, that society is apt to respond as though their facing matters of life and death.  That leads to violence that is considered justifiable in almost any extreme, because of what we see is at stake.  It makes it possible for people who yesterday felt very friendly toward another people, suddenly see those people not only as enemies, but as less than human.”

…

All of the restraints that people normally feel about the way human beings should treat human beings, those restraints gradually melt away, and people who are perfectly nice, decent people, find themselves doing things that they would have never thought that they could do….Under other circumstances a group of Mormons and a group of Missourians might have gone to dinner together and had a good time, but under these circumstances, they faced the Moral Panic.”

It is truly astonishing how quickly neighbor can turn against neighbor.  It is truly a tragedy when cooler heads do not prevail.

As I said before, I really enjoyed Ballentine’s film.  There is much more to the film than I have presented here.  If you get a chance to see this film at Sunstone, I encourage you to see it.  I know Ballentine is still trying to obtain financing to finish the film.  While it is not yet complete, I think it is an excellent film at this point.  If you would like a preview, click here to watch some clips from the official website.  I’ve invited Kenny to stop by, and I am sure he would welcome questions and comments.

She was the oldest in my family.  My father was a convert, and always referred to her as “the pioneer” of the family.  Perhaps that is why she liked the song so much.  The last verse is the one that always causes me to think about my sister.

And should we die before our journey’s through,
Happy day! All is well!
We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;
With the just we shall dwell!
But if our lives are spared again to see the Saints their rest obtain,
Oh, how we’ll make this chorus swell-
All is well! All is well!

My sister died from a brain tumor.  She struggled through radiation and chemotherapy for nearly 2 years before succumbing.  I often feel like she died before her journey was through, but I am glad she is free from toil and sorrow too.  I often wish her life was spared again, but it wasn’t.

She left behind 4 small children under the age of 10.  Three of them are in college now, and the other is a senior in high school.  They have coped very well, and are excellent people.

My brother died 4 years ago in a tragic auto accident.  He was about the same age as my sister when she died (36).  He also left behind 4 small children under the age of 7.  At the funeral, the closing song was “God Be With You Till We Meet Again.”

I can remember singing this song at the end of meetings, and thinking it was a nice song to end the meeting.  I planned on meeting everyone the next week at church again.  But when it was played at the funeral, it took on a whole new meaning.  I usually can’t sing the song anymore, but I love to listen to it.

God be with you till we meet again;
By His counsels guide, uphold you,
With His sheep securely fold you;
God be with you till we meet again.

Refrain

Till we meet, till we meet,
Till we meet at Jesus’ feet;
Till we meet, till we meet,
God be with you till we meet again.

I can’t wait to see my brother again.  So, what are some songs that touch your heart?

In this post, I’m taking a break from my normal analysis to report on the non-LDS songs that move me spiritually or uplift or inspire me in some way. Here is a small, eclectic smattering of these songs in random order:

• 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky. My favorite piece of classical music.
• John Rutter’s Requiem. Best Requiem EVER!
• August’s Rhapsody from the August Rush soundtrack.
• Piano Man by Billy Joel. A great story told.
• You Make Me So Very Happy by Blood, Sweat & Tears.
• Turn! Turn! Turn! by The Byrds. There’s a great lesson in this song.
• The Devil Went Down to Georgia by Charlie Daniels Band. Making deals with the Devil produces awesome music!
• Listen to the Music by The Doobie Brothers. Great song, great lyrics, great band.
• The Mission soundtrack by Ennio Morricone. Seriously, ’nuff said.
• Tears in Heaven by Eric Clapton. Great message, made better when you know the history of the song.
• Shower the People by James Taylor. If more of us took the message of this song to heart there would be much less heartache in the world.
• Perhaps Love by John Denver. Who doesn’t love John Denver? He’s a national treasure.
• To the Summit by Jon Schmidt. I know Jon Schmidt is sort of Mormon-ish music, but his music is really insipiring.
• Don’t Stop Believing by Journey.
• Dust in the Wind by Kansas. Humility is a virtue!
• Stairway to Heaven by Led Zeppelin. DUH!
• What a Wonderful World by Louis Armstrong. Indeed!
• Black or White by Michael Jackson. Great message, still sorely needed.
• Symphony #40 by Mozart. Moving, brilliant.
• Exogenesis: Symphony (3 parts) by Muse. Very moving, beautiful, and a strange twist of hard rock, classical, and new age.
• You Get What You Give by New Radicals. Stupid band, but has one song with a great message.
• This Too Shall Pass by OK Go. New song by a great group.
• The entire musical score from Les Miserables. Music from one of the best musicals ever produced from one of the most influential philosophical and sociological novels ever written.
• Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right by Peter, Paul And Mary (obviously a remake of Bob Dylan’s classic). Still brilliant.
• If I Had a Hammer by Peter, Paul And Mary (also a remake). A bit hippy, but was THE anthem for the civil rights movement.
• Take the Power Back by Rage Against The Machine. RATM is a bit over-the-top for me sometimes, but their lyrics send clear messages of pushing back against the “system” which I think we all need to do sometimes.
• Life is a Highway by Rascall Flatts (cover of Tom Cochrane’s hit, but RF does it so much better). Great message, uplifting.
• You Can’t Always Get What You Want by The Rolling Stones. This is the theme song at my house whenever my kids start whining!
• The Sounds of Silence by Simon & Garfunkel.
• Joy To The World by Three Dog Night. Uplifting, fun, done by a great band.
• Pretty much all of U2′s albums. Seriously, how does one pick a favorite U2 song? It’s like trying to pick a favorite child!
• Right Now by Van Halen. Current events gone wild!
• Album Live At The Acropolis by Yanni. New age brilliance!
• Album Appassionato by Yo-Yo Ma. Need I say more?
• Laughing With by Regina Spektor. A song about atheists in foxholes.

So now, readers (if you actually made it through my extensive list) what are your favorite non-LDS songs which uplift and/or inspire you in some way?

So, I have to confess that as a result, I rarely (if ever) visited the church’s website for non-members (at mormon.org). I thought it would be much of the same, and I thought I’d have to be a little embarrassed for it.

…but just a few days ago, the LDS Newsroom (another church site I rarely check…grr, I’m so bad!) announced that Mormon.org had gotten a facelift. I don’t know about you, but I am in awe. Click the image (or here) to jump to it!

I think the church has been trying to change its image for a while (and some of our friends in the Bloggernacle have discussed whether outside coverage on shifting Mormon perceptions is changing the average person’s viewpoint), but it’s had some misses. For example, it rang in 2009 with a new site for church youth (which [fortunately] has been quietly scuttled away, as far as I can tell — but you can still check out the video here), a site that oozed with pop and total radicality.

But for the new Mormon.org…I could be wrong…but it seems that the years of research into design, psychology, and current awareness of Mormonism paid off. You can read a fascinating account of the development of the new site here.

Here are just a few of my favorite aspects of the site.

Integration of Our People

From the first page (and even the picture that I posted), you can see that the designers of the new Mormon.org wanted people to hear regular (even if particularly attractive, talented) members. But what particularly intrigued me was the Our People page itself, where anyone can search for member testimonies and profiles by ethnicity, continent, age, gender, or even religious background. One goal of the designers at North Temple’s was to improve the perceptions of Mormons — especially of the diversity of the church membership — and I certainly think that this site has been a good step here.

Even more, member perspectives are integrated elsewhere throughout the site. Take for example the FAQ. Each topic has, in addition to the official church response, responses from various members. I’m certain that there is a certain vetting process to make sure that everything is kosher, but even in some touchy questions, there are touching, if seemingly surprising answers. (One woman answers the question regarding the church’s position on homosexuality and gay marriage by pointing out that the church does not support same-sex marriage, but does support families. She notes this has allowed her to support her mother, who is a lesbian, and her partner.)

Emphasis on Our Values

As someone who doesn’t have a testimony of every aspect of the faith, I could still be on board with the presentation of church values. The new mormon.org presents these values in such a way that most people can easily find agreement, but it does not try to present these values in a completely sterile and neutral way. The site successfully incorporates LDS perspectives, scriptures, and quotations so that they are not overbearing, but in a way that a non-member of the site could see that the church does have vibrant positions.

For example, the page on LDS valuation of freedom of choice conveys both the LDS position of official political neutrality and the LDS position of standing up for its valued moral positions. I understand that this interplay is often a raw point for some, but the site gracefully handles it.

Employment of Colors

Recently, another one of our brethren in the Bloggernacle listed the several “V” words that he found to be integral to true religion. His terms were an emotional onomatopoeia of life, love, and learning. Two words he used were verdant and vibrant — words that evoke a sense of richness to color.

This has not been lost or forgone with the new Mormon.org. I must admit that I am not a formal designer, and I am not a color psychologist, but as someone who can see and feel, I see vitality and hope from this very site. I can see some who might be skeptical — “it is just marketing; it is just pushing buttons.” But what about the fantastic art of the Renaissance? The heaven-reaching architecture? The divine melodies of the music?

I guess I’m not saying that this is the new masterpiece, but in the same way that effective design principles have always been used for emotional and spiritual direction and amplification, I feel like this site is a modern paradigm.

So, what do you think? Am I totally off the mark? Do you think that this will have any effect on nonmembers’ perceptions?

As I mentioned previously, I really enjoyed the Strangite session of the Mormon History Association meetings a few weeks ago.  Vickie Speek, John Hamer, and Mike Karpowicz gave some fascinating presentations on this little known group.  Following the session, they answered additional questions, and I thought it would be interesting to provide a transcript of the Q&A session.  But before I get into the transcript, I should tell you a brief history of the Strangite Church.

James Strang was baptized into the church just a few months before Joseph Smith was killed in 1844.  He said he had a letter from Joseph proclaiming that Strang was to lead the church.  The letter is currently owned by Yale University; in the past few decades, they have declared Joseph Smith’s signature on the letter a forgery.

Evidently Strang was a dynamic leader.  His church (officially known with slightly different punctuation as the Utah church: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints [no hyphen, different capitalization]) rivaled the Brigham Young movement in size.  They had some well known converts too:  Martin Harris, William Smith (Joseph’s brother), William Cowdery (Oliver’s father), William Marks (stake president in Nauvoo), William McLellin (former apostle), Hiram Page, and some of the Whitmer brothers.

Strang claimed an angel visited him, appointing him as prophet.  As part of his calling, he translated the Brass Plates into a book of scripture called “The Book of the Law of the Lord” written by Moses, and in Laban’s possession.  Originally against polygamy, Strang translated the book (first published in 1851), which said polygamy was a godly commandment.

Strang originally moved his followers to Voree, Wisconsin, and then received another revelation to move to Beaver Island, Michigan.  He crowned himself king, and was assassinated there by disgruntled followers.  The Strangites still exist today.  The have a few hundred members in Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, and Wisconsin.  Here is a website from a Strangite follower.  (It contains an online version of the Book of the Law of the Lord.)  John Hamer says the official website for the church is found here.

Independent historian Vickie Speek, John Hamer & Mike Karpowicz of John Whitmer Books, and Bill Russell of Graceland University (the CoC version of BYU) answered a few questions following their presentation on the past 160 years of Strangite history.

Newell Bringhurst, “I found it very enlightening too, but the one area I wanted to hear a little bit more about was the core teachings, the liturgy.  Did you get a sense, particularly John and Mike?  [Vickie] You went into the Law of the Lord in your paper and those tenets and teachings, but what core teachings were perpetuated to the make things that give them an identity as far as their Mormonism or moving beyond or in a different direction in terms of their Mormon teachings that we would identify with as Mormons, from a Latter-Day Saint tradition?”

John Hamer, “I identified in my paper that there is a remarkable continuity.  When we first looked into this, we weren’t sure how this church that had been on Beaver Island and in Wisconsin, how did it end up being in New Mexico?  So we wondered, ‘is this a Neo-Strangite Church?  Is this a bunch of people who got converted and started calling themselves Strangites that don’t have any actual continuity?’  But we found in the course of looking through the records–we had incredible access to all the church’s records, we interviewed a dozen of the oldest members of the church, the branch records going all the way back to the 19th century are all kept in the vaults and all maintained—there is a remarkable continuity of practice and teaching that occurs because these Beaver Island members taught this new generation.  The practices remain and all sorts of things remain.

Some of the things we mentioned were sealing—sealing continues to be done, so that is unusual for Midwestern Mormons for example.  Most of the other branches other than the Cutlerites don’t do that.  You don’t have that in the Community of Christ.  It’s not in the Hedrickites.  They’re sealed for time and all eternity.  This idea of adopting into a noble and a princely household, these kingdom powers—that was being done all the way up through the [19]60’s, especially members of the Flanders clan were sealed, adopting into this Ketchum household that they were intermarried with in the 19th century, but essentially had forgotten that they were inter-married with.  This was more or less forgotten.  Some of this history has been recovered from the records, this connection between Joseph Ketchum and Granny Flanders.  Remember that Granny Flanders was this matriarch who had done this.

I would just say there are an incredible number of practices, there are all kinds of Strangite practices.  The Book of the Law of the Lord is integral as scripture.  It is read.  The Voree Branch are 7th day Sabbath-tarians—that’s Strangite practice.  The Laws of Sacrifice so they would sacrifice first fruits so again a lot of Strangite practice, because they had a second prophet, there’s all sorts of things that they have that other branches don’t have.  So I think the continuity is actually remarkable and the amount of practice and preservation is remarkable.  There are just a few things that fall out, because they don’t have the top priesthood offices.  So some things they don’t feel are valid to do.  One of those is plural marriages for example, they’re not done.

Vickie Speek, “There’s something we didn’t mention is the fact that according to Strangite belief, the lesser cannot ordain the higher. So they’ve lost their prophet, they’ve lost their priesthood, because only God can make a prophet.  Man can’t.  Man can’t make another prophet, so when James Strang died, the prophet died.

John Hamer, “It’s simply invalid for a teacher to ordain a priest.  Likewise, you cannot have an apostle ordain a prophet.  So that’s why Joseph [Smith] III’s ordination is invalid.  William Marks, as great of priesthood or whatever as he had is not a prophet, he cannot ordain a prophet.  Likewise Brigham Young, the other apostles that ordain him—that’s simply invalid in Strangite view, because the lesser cannot ordain the greater.

Newell Bringhurst, “So then the highest priesthood office then is a high priest, is that correct?”

Hamer, “Yes, High Priest.”

Bill Russell, “Since prophets die, and  Joseph was killed, then how are you going to have a successor to Joseph?”

Hamer, “Angelic ordination.”

??? “Just the way Strang was ordained.”

Vickie, “James Strang could have, under the direction of God, laid his hands and ordained somebody before he passed, but he did not.”

Larry Foster, “I also commend the excellent papers.  I had a couple questions more to Vickie, and maybe I missed part of it, or maybe it was answered elsewhere.  On the Book of the Law of the Lord, that’s an extremely impressive book I think.  I looked at it, but the 1856 edition is much bigger than the original book which is only about 50 pages?  A lot of the best stuff in the 1856 edition is these extended explanatory notes, I don’t know if polygamy is in the original text of the edition, or is it part of that explanatory notes stuff that extends the length of the book so much?

The other question I had was an inevitable question about Strang—what does one make of him?  He didn’t ordain a successor even though he was alive for several weeks after he was shot fatally.  Going back, how does polygamy get in there?  How about John C. Bennett?  It seems like John C. Bennett is right there at the heart of Nauvoo polygamy and Strangite polygamy and it seems like he was equally destructive in both contexts.  [audience chuckles]

I also wondered, I read one of Strang’s articles.  Golly, he could sure write.  He almost convinced me that polygamy was a great thing to liberate women.  [audience chuckles]  It gives them all kinds of choices they don’t have and they’re not stuck with a bunch of dodos.  It would appear, and I’ve been criticized by one of the Strangites for saying this, that certainly his letter of appointment was a forgery, that it seems to reflect his own diary.  It is block printed, the name has no relationship to Joseph Smith.”

Bill Russell, “We talked about his appointment at the beginning.”

Foster, “Oh you did.  There’s a pretty clear cut case of forgery, or maybe did you find some other approach?”

Vickie, “The way that I have looked at it.  When I wrote my book about the Strangites, I approached it basically as a newspaper reporter.  I was not going to take a position either way, I was just going to tell the story.  Because to me, it doesn’t matter to me what my opinion of James Strang was, but I was doing the story of the people who believed him, so that’s the way I wrote my book, and that’s the way I still basically look at it.  I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people who followed James Strang, and the Strangites of today, because their [road] is not the main road.  Theirs has been a very hard, hard road with a lot of heartache.

Now I would like to make one comment.  As far as I know, there is only a few copies of the 1851 Book of the Law, and there is somebody here who is familiar with the 1851 Book of the Law, and I’d like to ask him if there is polygamy in it?”

John Hajicek, “Yeah, there is.”

Vickie, “It’s basically the same thing?”

Hamer, “It’s in the main text, right?  In other words, it just lacks the commentary, so it has the text, it just doesn’t explain it, right?”

John Hajicek, “Are you guys asking me?”  [audience chuckles]  “Yeah, I have an 1851 Book of the Law and it’s an 80 page preliminary version.  It was published as a pamphlet with colored, printed wrappers on it.  It doesn’t have the explanatory notes.  It has 95% of the sections.  He continued to translate some additional sections.  There are some interesting differences.  For example, the first edition doesn’t have a chapter on baptism for the dead, and Strang includes his earlier 1849 revelation on baptism for the dead instead, and then has a footnote that says baptism for the dead evidently didn’t exist in the Old Testament.  Later he translates a chapter after on baptism from this Mosaic period, allegedly Mosaic period record.  So his own views changed.  But on polygamy he didn’t change.  The laws on the number of wives a king could have and things like that are all in that first edition.”

Bill Russell, “That 1851 edition does have that you say?”

John Hajicek, “Right.

Mike, “Bill, is my assumption correct that with the assassination of Strang, that the tensions between the Strangites and the state and federal government kind of dissipated at that point.  It is interesting to me that whereas the army had a relationship with the Utah church for quite a while, Strang was shot virtually under the guns of the USS Michigan, a naval vessel on the Great Lakes.  I don’t know what the reports that were filed by the state of Michagan were, and how they were considered when they got back to Washington to the Navy Department in the Pierce administration, but were the tensions with the state governments of in Michigan and Wisconsin and federal government dissipated after the assassination?”

Hamer, “Yeah, because they also got expelled.  They picked up all the members.  They spoiled them of all their property.  They put them on rented boats and they dropped them off all along the coast line destitute in little tiny groups.  So it was the worst kind of persecution results than any other Mormons faced.”

Mike, “Did the navy play a part in that or was it all surveyance from Mackinaw City?”

Vickie, “There is no positive evidence.  However, you take all the circumstantial evidence together, and I say yes.”

Hamer, “Not in the dropping off of the people.”

Vickie, “Not in the dropping off of people, no.”

Hamer, “But like Mike said, the warship is there in the murder.”

Mike, “Does the USS Michigan ferry people from Mackinaw City to St. James as part of the mob?”

Hamer, “Yes.”

Vickie, “As part of the Mob?”

Mike, “Yes”

Vickie, “I don’t believe it was the Michigan.  There were 2 ships in Michigan.  There was a steamer and there was a warship.”

Mike, “I’m asking about the USS Michigan, the warship.”

Vickie, “I don’t know.”

Hamer, “Right, The warship left the dock though.”

Vickie, “Right, it left the dock when Strang was murdered and the murderers jumped on the ship and then left.”

Mike, “2 guys jumped on the ship.”

Vickie and Hamer, “Right.”

Mike, “They left on the USS Michigan?”

Vickie and Hamer, “Yes”.

Mike, “It’s an interesting parallel with the 2 churches: one with the army involved, and the other with the navy.” [audience chuckles]

Vickie, “I think the conflict was gone, because the Strangites were gone, they were scattered.”

Mike, “and the polygamy issue kind of faded away, then?”

Vickie, “Right.”

William Russell, “Here’s a question right here, and then our time is expired so maybe this should be our last one.”

Woman, “Why did they kill James Strang?”

Vickie, “That’s a good question.  Basically, people had become disillusioned with Strang.  Strang was caught trying to follow the Book of the Law and one of the tenets of the church is no alcohol, and basically the Strangites didn’t allow alcohol and they did not support the sale of alcohol to the Native Americans and there was a lot of conflict with the gentiles, and so forth who wanted to sell alcohol.  Strangites became thirsty and they left the fold for other reasons, and those are the ones that basically were in the conspiracy to kill Strang.”

Hamer, “That’s one of them.  That’s on ongoing conflict.  Whenever Mormons gather together in big numbers and took political control and things like that, they would have conflict with their neighbors.  There are all kinds of problems that result from that including the 2 groups don’t trust each other, they don’t feel they can get justice from each other.  The other Americans see Mormons gathering under one prophet as being un-American.  There’s a lot of tendency to go and kill that prophet.”

Bill Russell, “One other thing though, he did serve 1 term in the Michigan legislature.”

Hamer, “Two terms.”

Russell, “Well 2 years I think is all.  But anyway, he was considered very effective according to the Detroit Free Press.  It’s interesting that a prophet and king could be elected to the Michigan legislature and get along well.” [audience chuckles]  He was also a member of the farms.  Well thank you very much, this was an excellent session.”

Like I said, it was a fascinating question.  I’ve invited John Hamer and a few others to entertain questions if you have any.  Do you have any questions for them?

I’ve learned some interesting concepts from class on Ancient and Medieval Church History.  Session #23 discusses Eastern Orthodoxy.  First, let’s have a little background.  The Eastern Orthodox Church officially split with the Catholic Church in 1054.  The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch in Constantinople, so the Patriarch did the same to the Pope.  There had been some different emphasis on theology for quite some time.  For example, while the Catholic Church claimed that the Pope held all the leadership, the Orthodox Church held a much less central authority.  The Orthodox belief of revelation is that God speaks through these councils, not one central person.

There were seven early councils (such as the Nicene Council.) These edicts of these councils are usually considered scripture in the Orthodox church.  The various Orthodox churches (Russian, Greek, etc) are quite a bit more autonomous.  The Orthodox church even holds out that there could one day be an American Orthodox church, if membership warrants such an organization.

Even before the official split, there were many tensions between Rome and Constantinople.  In the podcast, the teacher refers to Rome as the “Western” church, and Constantinople as the “Eastern” church.  The western church spoke mostly Latin, while the eastern church spoke mostly Greek.  In the West, the church had an emphasis on:

1. Sin
2. Grace
3. Justification
4. Salvation
5. Sacraments

The eastern church agrees, but has a larger emphasis on:

1. Apophaticism – an emphasis on the mystery of God.
2. Tradition
3. Theosis
4. Icons

I’d like to talk about Theosis.  Theosis is a greek word meaning Deification, as in the deification of humanity.  Unfortunately, I do not know the name of the teacher, but anyone can download the podcast to hear him directly.  I’d like to quote the teacher directly.

“[Theosis] is the word that really sums up salvation.  In the West, we talk about sin and justification as a way of understanding salvation.  In the East, the emphasis is on theosis or deification.  We are changed so that we become like God, or Eastern theologians will say it even more strongly than that.  As Athanasius put it, ‘God became man, that man might become God.’  That’s theosis, or deification.

Well, that strikes the western mind as kind of a problematic way to understand theology and to understand the transforming effect of grace.  The eastern mind though sees that as the real purpose of Christ coming into the world, to transform us that we become like him.  In some ways, we can see that if we’re talking about union with Christ, or becoming more and more like Christ or becoming more and more like God.  But in the eastern expression of theosis, it is stated so strongly that Christ became man, that we might become God that most western thinkers pull back from that.  It sounds like a kind of heresy of some sort.  I expect closer examination of the eastern idea of theosis, will reveal that the eastern theology doesn’t for the most part, go over the line, but it uses language that can be suggested of something that western Christians would want to avoid.

The people in the west that pick up this same idea are the mystics, and in the west, they were constantly accused of pantheism.  Because, to the western mind, this kind of language, and this kind of expression goes too far because it tends to blur the distinction between God and his creation.”

I decided to look up theosis on Wikipedia, and found this interesting quote from St Ireneaus (who lived 130-202 AD.)  He is considered a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches.  “St. Irenaeus explained this concept in Against Heresies, Book 5, in the Preface, “the Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself.”

It seems to me that mormons have much in common with this idea of theosis.  This sounds quite similar to Lorenzo Snow’s quote, “As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” Comments?

You have mentioned the importance of communicating with our spouse about our view of sex–not just the fantasies. I don’t feel like I can do that with my husband. He is not a safe place to go for me. We have a different opinion about how and how often we should be having sex. Part of my opinion on that is because of insecurities that I have about my body, that sadly, he has made even worse. So when I try to express my opinions on the subject I feel like he has just gotten defensive. And his defense mechanism is to just shut down. It has been going on for a long time. In other areas of our marriage, I feel like we are doing pretty well, but this issue has lately begun to seep through our whole relationship and I feel like if we don’t take care of it soon, we won’t be able to at all.
We all come to marriage with our own sexual histories, sexual expectations and sexual taboos. And there is no magical guidebook given to us after the marriage ceremony to help us navigate through these complicated thoughts, feelings and frustrations. Here are some thoughts I had as I read through your experience:

• Sexuality is closely tied with our egos, self-esteem and for many a sense of shame or embarrassment. This is why it can be difficult to talk about and most of us could use some help in this department.
• Our religious framework often has much to do with the “hows” and the “how oftens.”  Having frank and open discussions in a respectful setting regarding sex is pivotal to any couple of any faith.
• The “how oftens” also have much to do with differences in biological drive.  Knowledge of how biological drive will affect your sexuality as a couple is also important.
• One recommendation is to go get couples counseling. Make sure you go to someone who is qualified to do couples work, which is different from individual therapy. You may also consider going to a specialized sex therapist who is even more qualified to deal with sexual issues.  The biggest mistake that couples make when it comes to seeking professional help is to not get it early enough. You say your marriage is primarily in a good place. It will be much easier to do this work now before you add years of resentment, mistrust, and anger.  A good therapist, whether LDS or not, should respect your religious values regarding sexuality.  Since the sense of safety is so important to whether or not a couple can successfully resolve issues, this should be one of the main themes around the work you do in therapy.
• The only person you have control over is yourself. And the only person who can work on your self-esteem is yourself. If your partner is making comments that put you down, it can be extremely difficult to NOT have it affect your self-esteem. However, your self-esteem is your own responsibility and I would recommend doing some self-esteem work. If your partner refuses to seek help with you, it is your right to seek help anyway.
• There is a big difference between constructive feedback and putting somebody down. Unfortunately in marriage we can often belittle our partner or find ourselves being criticized in an unproductive way. A common self-defense mechanism is finding faults in others when we don’t feel good about ourselves. Your husband may be struggling with his own self-esteem and be putting you down as a result. Obviously in a marriage, this negative pattern can spiral to the point that affection and intimacy are greatly affected. It is perfectly reasonable to set appropriate boundaries around hurtful or negative comments (i.e. “I am not ok with you putting down the way I look. It affects my self-esteem and it is not healthy for our marriage.”).
• It would be helpful if we could remember that pointing out to our spouse things that we don’t like about them (especially in a critical or demeaning fashion) usually has the opposite effect of getting what we want.
• When it is difficult to talk about something, especially with a spouse who withdraws from conflict, it can be useful to write a letter instead. I would include the following elements (and notice the use of “I” statements which help keep you away from blame):

1. These are the things I love about our marriage…. These are the things that I think we are good at….
2. At the same time (not however or but), I feel like we would both agree that we’ve been struggling in this area…
3. I would like to get some outside help so that we can look forward to increasing the level of intimacy and trust in our relationship…. These are some options that I am considering…
4. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter…..
5. I believe in us…..
6. I love you and my desire is to be closer to you…

• If I was going to work with you as a couple some information that would be helpful to know about you would be:

1. is there any past sexual trauma for either partner?
2. what are your sexual histories? have you been honest with each other about your sexual histories?
3. what are the patterns of previous generations? what kinds of relationships were modeled? how was sex education and messages communicated about in the families of origin?
4. how has your religion framed your sexual mindset? how do each of you see the purpose of sex?
5. is there any past or current sexual behavior that would cause shame or secrecy (i.e. pornography use, affairs, ruminating thoughts, etc.)?
6. what’s the level of self-esteem work that needs to be done for both?
7. are there any eating disorders involved?
8. what correlation do you see between emotional, intellectual, spiritual and physical intimacy?

For the readers of MM – what have you found useful in your relationships when talking about topics that don’t feel comfortable or safe?  How have you struck a balance between offering constructive criticism instead of belittlement?  How have you taken constructive criticism yourself?  How do gospel principles help or hinder us in this department (i.e. stand up for yourself vs turn the other cheek)?  Do you feel safe talking to your spouse about sex?  Do the church education programs prepare us to talk to our spouses about sex?  How do we best handle differences in the “how” or “how often” departments?  When should compromise be part of the equation and when shouldn’t it?  What about issues of physical attraction when one of us gains weight for example?

I always thought the United Order and Consecration were the same thing.  I’ve been reading a book called Great Basin Kingdom by Leonard Arrington (former church historian) and learned they are actually different.  The basic difference to me seems to be that with Consecration, one gave all they owned to the church, and then were given back “what they needed.”  With the United Order, it seems to have originated out of various economic cooperatives established to give fair, reasonable prices and jobs to the Mormons.  In some cases, saints could choose to consecrate all their possessions to the United Order, but usually it worked more in an economic cooperative, where fair prices were established for Mormons.  If they sold to gentiles, often the gentiles paid more.

The United Order movement was an extension of cooperatives.  These cooperatives began principally around 1868-1884, and were set up as a response to how current trading was accomplished.  In chapter 10 (page 193-194), Arrington says,

Structurally, most Mormon “cooperatives” were nothing more than joint-stock corporations, organized under the sponsorship of the church, with a broad basis of public ownership and support.  Functionally, however, most Mormon cooperatives appear to have been motivated principally by welfare rather than profit; patronage was an act of religious loyalty; the church participated  in the organization, operation, and financing of most o the important establishments; and the whole cooperative movement was permeated with an unmistakable pietistic zeal and feeling of religious obligation…

…most merchandising was in the hands of non-Mormons because of the stigma attached to “profiteering Saints,” and because of the inability of Mormon traders to refuse credit to their “brethren” and force payment of debts.

There was an interesting quote from Brigham Young explaining why Consecration didn’t work under Joseph Smith, and also why Joseph wasn’t a good, successful merchant.  From page  83,

Let me give you a few reasons…why Joseph [that is the church] could not keep a store and be a merchant….Joseph goes to New York and buys 20,000 dollars’ worth of goods, comes into Kirtland and commences to trade.  In comes one of the brethren, “Brother Joseph, let me have a frock pattern for my wife.”  What if Joseph says, “No, I cannot without the money.”  The consequence would be, “He is no Prophet.”…Pretty soon Thomas walks in.  “Brother Joseph, will you trust me for a pair of boots?”  “No, I cannot let them go without the money.”  “Well,” says Thomas, “Brother Joseph is not Prophet; I have found that out, and I am glad of it.”  After a while, in comes Bill and sister Susan.  Says Bill, “Brother Joseph, I want a shawl, I have not got the money, but I wish you to trust me a week or a fortnight.”  Well, brother Joseph thinks the others have gone an apostatized, and he didn’t know but these goods will make the whole Church do the same, so he lets Bill have a shawl.  Bill walks off with it and meets a brother.  “Well,” says he, “what do you think of brother Joseph?”  “O he is a first-rate man, and I fully believe he is a Prophet.  See here, he has trusted me this shawl.”  Richard says, “I think I will go down and see if he won’t trust me some.”  In walks Richard.  “Brother Joseph, I want to trade about 20 dollars.”  “Well,” says Joseph, “these goods will make the people apostatize; so over they go , they are of less value than the people.”  Richard gets his goods.  Another comes in the same way to make a trade of 25 dollars, and so it goes.  Joseph was a first-rate fellow with them all the time, provided he never would ask them to pay him.”  [sermon of October 9, 1851, JD, 1, 214-216]

Cooperatives turned out to be a real success, and there were several different implementations of them. Chapter 11 of the book gives some real interesting background as to these cooperatives turned into United Orders, as well as the different kinds of United Orders formed in Utah.  The nationwide Panic of 1873 affected economies in Utah as well as nationwide.  From page 323,

This co-operative movement,” said Brigham Young in 1869, “is only a stepping stone to what is called the Order of Enoch, but which is in reality the order of Heaven.” [See Brigham Young sermons in JH, October 6, 1850, October 8, 1855]  In 1869 and succeeding years, sermon after sermon played upon the theme to unify and the necessity of extending the principle of cooperation to every phase of life.

From page 324,

The resources of ward members were pooled, and an attempt was made under the aura of religious sanction, to root out individualistic profit-seeking and trade and achieve the blessed state of opulent self-sufficiency and equality.  This new order, recognized to be somewhat different from the law of consecration and stewardship, was called “The United Order of Enoch.”  [This idea is taken from the city of Zion in the Pearl of Great Price.]

Since these orders developed separately, about 4 different kinds of orders existed.  Page 330 starts talking about them.

First, there were St. George type orders in which persons in the community contributed all of their economic property to the Order and received differential wages and dividends depending upon their labor and the property contributed.  Gains were achieved through the increased specialization of labor and the rationalization of agriculture by cooperative farming.  However, in most of these communities a few residents failed to join, and this caused some practical problems which were not always satisfactorily resolved…

(page 331) A second type of United Order did not involve consecration of all of one’s property or labor, but contemplated an increase in the community ownership and operation of cooperative enterprises.  This is the Brigham City plan, and was introduced in communities where the cooperative system was already widespread.  Thus, the United Order was simply used as a device to reinforce and extend the cooperative network already in existence…

(page 332) A third type of United Order was essentially a modification of the Brigham City arrangement.  Designed for wards in the larger cities of the territory-Salt Lake, Ogden, Provo, and Logan-a single cooperative or corporation was organized in each ward to promote some needed enterprise.  All ward members were asked to participate in financing it.  The theory seems to have been that, if economic reorganization was impossible because of a considerable number of Gentile residents, the wards could still contribute toward territorial self-sufficiency by initiating an industry whose products had been imported previously.  Thus, while there would be little to create employment and develop the territory.

I mentioned this in my previous post, but let me summarize some ward projects:

• Hat factory
• Tailor’s shop
• Soap manufactory
• Boot and shoe shop
• Large foundry
• Machine shop
• Making agricultural tools
• Planning mill and woodworking shop

From page 333,

Perhaps the most interesting of the orders were those established on a communal plan.  In some quarters this plan was called the Gospel Plan.  Settlers contributed all their property to the community United Order, had no private property, shared more of less equally in the common products, and lived and ate as a well-established family.  The best known of these was established at Orderville, Utah, but others functioned in Price City, Springdale, and Kingston, Utah; Bunkerville, Nevada; and in a number of newly founded Arizona settlements.

I talked previously about the pants episode, which comes from Orderville, which came from this communal arrangement.  So, what do you think of these different orders?  What do you think of Brigham’s statement regarding Joseph Smith?  I honestly don’t think it would be any easier for us to live like this than it was for them.  When people talk about how the people weren’t righteous enough to live consecration, it seems to imply that we’re more righteous than they were.  I honestly don’t understand why we would make such an arrogant statement, because I think it would be extremely difficult.  I’m impressed with these ideals, and their attempt to live this higher law.

I think so many people want a clear “black and white” answer on many issues. Instead our leaders and the Lord give us great freedom (leeway so to speak) to live our religion.
A lot of people seem to be on a quest to “decide” what our Heavenly Father must feel and what His stance must be on certain things like oral sex, plastic surgery, and even consuming caffeine, for example….
So many people are adamant that they KNOW what’s right and what’s wrong, and that all other opinions are false.
Someone may assume, for instance, that because I am not speaking out against these things that therefore, I must do them myself. What’s important to me is that I don’t join the ranks of people assuming that my answer is the right answer – and then move towards casting judgments.
Agency can be such a tricky thing, can’t it?

Well I couldn’t agree with you more. There are so many reasons I love the gospel of Jesus Christ. Three of its main principles that resonate with me are 1. the gift and importance of free agency, 2. knowing we have the possibility to receive personal revelation applicable to our unique situation, and 3. the guidance to be non-judgmental and merciful when dealing with ourselves and others.

• It is through our free agency that we learn EVERYTHING. If we choose to follow the gospel, then we choose. If we don’t, we still choose. Either way the consequences (whether positive or negative) have to do with learning and progression. It is based on the principle of opposition. For every good there is bad. For every painful experience there is the possibility for joy. If we can truly accept this principle, it is easier to have perspective when we fall, or what can seem sometimes worse, when our loved ones fall.
• It is through personal revelation that one of our prophets, Nephi, came to know he had to kill in order to recover the history of his people. This went against the most basic of commandments.  I am in no way inferring that we should feel justified in murder through the guise of personal revelation, and yet there is a lesson to be learned. Sometimes, for the sake of something better and bigger and through personal revelation, we leave the “rule” behind (i.e. we stay in a struggling marriage for the sake of an eternal family, we divorce our spouse because of personal safety, we embrace the member we know has recently been excommunicated, we love and support our gay son who has left the church, we think before speaking in church and take into account different situations, we cease to judge others whom we know little about, we decide that engaging in oral sex is OK, we decide engaging in oral sex is not OK, etc.). It is of utmost importance for all of us to be continually building on this heavenly means of communication with our Father for it has no limit.
• Once we understand that all of us are on different progression paths, we can better accept the concepts of mercy and forgiveness which lead to the possibility of being less judgmental. The “I can’t believe he did that!” “Did you hear what she just said?” “I could never do something like that!” comments go by the wayside to make way for a more productive process of communication that embodies the true love of Christ: charity. And charity never faileth. It never fails us and it never fails others. Christ Himself loved, served, and healed the most vile of sinners of His time. Is this not the utmost of metaphors for us all? We all sin. It is impossible in this life not to. If we did not sin, what would be the point of even being here?

In my dealings with many members of the church and in looking at my own life experiences, I have come to the conclusion that very little of what we are faced with falls into the “Black or White” category. From the very beginning we know that Eve and Adam face a contradiction: two opposing commandments. We can ask what kind of God would put us in this predicament? I counter with this answer: A God who wanted us to learn mercy. A God who needs us to understand compassion. A God who wants us to think for ourselves, use our resources, and stretch our boundaries or comfort zones. In fact many of our beloved scriptural stories are in some way or another about people who had to find an exception to the rule – a different way than what their cultural or religious traditions proscribed. Jesus Christ Himself was the epitome of breaking the Mosaic and Judaic rules in order to achieve cadence to a higher law – a higher purpose. I am in no way encouraging everyone to go break rules for the heck of it. Commandments and guidance are in place to help us achieve happiness and attain blessings. I just hope that through this gospel principle of looking at the “gray” which surrounds us, we can look at situations on an individual basis (not everything or everyone fits into the same mold) and on a merciful basis (no matter what anyone is doing or not doing, they deserve our love and respect as fellow children of God – including ourselves).

MM readers- How do you see the world?  Black and White?  Or with varying degrees of gray?

But, still, we live in 2010 and we are moving forward. Technology is a part of much of our lives. How much do we use it to supplement our faith?

A while back, a friend of mine on twitter invited me to work with her to write an article on the LDSTech Community, (or at least cover the Developers Conference they held earlier this year.) I was flattered to be asked to work in such a project. I also found myself extremely inadequate.

I ultimately decided to decline the invitation.

This article isn’t going to be a comprehensive coverage of anything like that [so, if you happen to be reading this, @NotSoPoetic, it's not like I stole your idea and went along without you .]

But recently, I’ve been thinking about that.

I am somewhat interested in technology. I dual-boot between Windows XP (yes, I understand that this operating system is…almost a decade old) and Linux Mint. I don’t necessarily collect, but I am very interested in smartphones and their OSes, keeping track of news about the new iOS 4, Blackberry OS 6, Android, webOS, Windows Phone 7 Series, and…you get the point?

But I am simply an enthusiast. I don’t program. I don’t develop. I consume and scrawl out some code in a terminal occasionally in order to troubleshoot.

So, from a technological standpoint, I obviously don’t think I can even scratch the surface of talking about the LDS Tech community…except from a standpoint of being a consumer.

Back when I had a Palm Pilot (and then when I moved to a Dell Axim x51v…and then when I moved on to…you get the point), I always wanted to find some kind of program so I could load up the scriptures with me. Back then, I guess I just wanted to do it because I could. (Maybe such is true now).

So when I downloaded the LDS Gospel Library to my Palm Pre, I guess I felt the spirit of old times’ sake. Of course, if you don’t already know, the LDS Gospel Library is available for all the major mobile platforms.

I guess I could give a review. But again, that’s not quite the point here (although I will say I am quite impressed with the app.) I’m really just trying to provide a framework for discussion.

Of course, since we are all here, then we know about blogging. But are we just readers? Are we commenters, or are we writers as well? And beyond blogs themselves, do we engage technology with our faith in any other ways? Twitter, anyone?

I’m just wondering…how much…and in what ways…does technology supplement and help your faith?

The emphasis on the “physicality of God” even in the spiritual realm grew in concert with notions of the Eternal Family and its role and function in achieving and living in Celestial Glory. The elaboration of this theology was natural as the early church leadership began to push, even if at first secretly, new forms of marriage and family life, but it was not an inevitable evolution of the theology of the 1830 Restoration. For example, no one in the Community of Christ expects that the afterlife is about progressing to populate new worlds with our own spiritual offspring, as Heavenly Father populated our own world. In one denomination, it is the Heavenly Father; in the other it is Heavenly Father, with the seldom spoken inference that there may be Heavenly Mother lurking in the theology as well.

Today, because of this history, Mormons have a well-integrated belief system about how and why the Divine interacts with the physical universe that, nevertheless, is very different from its “prairie cousins”, let alone in comparison to more distantly related Christian denominations. As a prairie cousin with an abiding interest in the theological role of the physical, this fascinates me. LDS theology raises questions about the limits of acceptable definitions of “children of God”, and what God might do to see His children come out on top that would never occur to me in CofChrist theology. These are the kinds of questions I’d like to ask openly in this post.

Let’s look at extreme cases first, and then try to focus in on cases closer to home.

We know that the universe is a violent place. Creation is violent itself, and often involves destruction on scales we can barely comprehend. My favorite example is the “Death Star Galaxy”. We have in that example a small galaxy – a mere few billion stars is small – that has wandered into a radiation jet being emitted by a larger galaxy. The jet is obliterating thousands of solar systems, and any life there, as we watch by telescope.

What does that tell us? Are planets with life so rare that God can let planets be destroyed wholesale without moral consequences? Or perhaps there are not moral consequences because the life there is not human and thus has no spirits? Either way, would God be able to “write off” a great deal of reality under LDS theology because His “children” weren’t involved? He just has to watch over those special few worlds ideal for humanity. The worlds with just the right size, at just the right distance from stars of the proper temperature and age, with the proper orbital stability and a big brother planet like Jupiter nearby to protect against too frequent impacts from comets. The list of requirements is lengthy, but with infinite space to play around in, they’re bound to pop up here and there even if God doesn’t directly favor them with a helping hand.

Or perhaps God has to actively “weed out” competition for his favored species. You could interpret the evidence that way, too. Consider the destruction of the dinosaurian ecosystems 65 million years ago, or the even more catastrophic Permian extinction scores of millions of years still earlier. Our existence and physical forms today depend in complex, but critical, ways on details of those events. For example, the locations within their general orbits of all the inner planets of our solar system, including the earth, are known to be chaotic on only the order of 5 million years. Start out an orbital simulation with the earth relocated by as little as a millimeter, and in 5 million years, the earth could be on the other side of the sun. A “miracle” performed a hundred million years ago that protects humanity from destruction by asteroid strike or clears the world of big reptilians so mammals (and man) can take over could be too small to notice. Far easier than Moses calling on God to make the sun stand still during battle or parting the Red Sea.

What LDS theology would define to be human gets tougher to distinguish as we get closer to humanity. How close? Well, within the last few weeks, evidence has been published on the results of sequencing Neanderthal DNA. The evidence, first reported in Science, but more accessible here at Science News, shows that modern humans whose lines remained in Africa do not share Neandertal DNA. However, all of the rest of us get one to four percent of our genes from interbreeding with Neandertals that occurred after leaving Africa 45,000 or so years ago. We don’t carry Neandertal body types, but we do seem to carry something important from that population in our internal chemistry and in our brains. Eternal Family reunions might be more surprising than our expectations.

So, did the Neandertals die out because our body type was a little more divine than theirs? Or were the ones who bred with Homo sapiens the more righteous ones? Or do we extend the moral capability and need for redemption to an extinct species at all? Do we instead decide that we are all descended from ancestors who practiced bestiality? Were physical specimens of humans who had no Spirits walking around contemporaneously with Adam?

Look closer now as we get to Biblical or Jaredite times. Now we picture God as acting in detail to favor one nation over another, one individual over another. We try to point to specific reasons for that favoritism in terms of justice, mercy, or obedience in this life or in preexistence, and we can often convince ourselves that such reasons exist. I could argue a very good case, for example, that slaughter of entire Canaanite cities down to the last child might actually produce fewer casualties in the long run.

But the more uncomfortable I become unless I make the case in such terms, the more I realize that tying God’s plan of salvation to things other than intelligence, or justice, or mercy, or obedience – properties that have little to do with the shape or functions of my body – raises doubts. Wouldn’t exalted beings give up such narrow notions of the boundaries of humanity as part of the progression toward exaltation itself?

So I look at the criteria with which we define relationships with God through their physical manifestations – species, race, gender, diet, clothes – and I wonder. Is God really concerned about those things when He decides to claim His children. Or are we just engaging in a very destructive and provincial form of sibling rivalry?

In my Father’s house are many mansions. Maybe some reefs and rookeries, too. Maybe some hives for natural clones or collective minds.

And if that’s true, then certainly there are places for Homo sapiens with same-sex attraction, or childless couples, or singles – every form of Eternal Family we might imagine from the occurrence of those forms here on earth.

Everyone knows Superman.  He is simply the most powerful superhero ever created.  Invulnerable to almost everything, his list of abilities includes flight, speed, strength, heat vision, x-ray vision . . . the list goes on.  His private life also seems pretty sweet.  He was raised by two stead[y] parents (although in some versions Pa Kent dies when Clark is young), has a good career, and in recent years is married to the love of his life.  Director Richard Donner went so far as to present Supes as a Christ figure in the 1979 film, with Jor-El (God the Father?) sending his only son to earth to help mortals realize their potential for good.

As contrasted to:

Then there’s Spiderman, a decidedly less perfect hero.  Peter Parker’s parents are gone, and even his Uncle Ben dies early on, leaving him with only Aunt Mae.  He gets bitten by a radioactive spider and gains powers including strength, speed, agility, wall-climbing, and “spider-sense.” …Impressive abilities, to be sure, but nothing compared to Superman.  He also struggles with issues like unemployment, unpopularity, and girl problems to a much greater degree than his DC counterparts.  He’s a real person, dealing with real problems, plus he fights crime.

Hall addressed the way that, as different generations idealized different superheroes, different generations of church leadership idealized different parts of church history and doctrine. But now, as new generations are growing up in a new technological era, they discover not that there are new heroes to be found…but rather they discover that the old heroes — whom they had been raised to believe were larger-than-life like the DC superheroes — were always more akin to the down-to-earth Marvel counterparts. Such a discovery, rather than leading the way for a a blossoming of new understanding of the heroes, has led to a sense of betrayal for many.

Why is this the case? In an article I wrote discussing that elusive concept of “The Great Mormon Novel,” I had not anticipated making any connections to history. Yet, as I read one comment, I wondered:

One of the qualities that makes literature great is the ability to create nuance. Protagonists with serious flaws and antagonists with shiny centers. I don’t think Mormonism is very conducive to this view. There’s a lot of black and white thinking – take the typical LDS attitude toward coffee drinkers, for example.

In fact, an arument could be made that an individual Mormon writer could write a great novel, but a MORMON novel, by definition, is going to be flat and full of cariacture.

I immediately was taken aback by this. Sure, I could see what the point that the writer was trying to make…and I don’t think I can really deny some impact of what he had said. Yet, as I remarked then, and what I’ve been thinking about ever since, was this:

Even if we see the way correlated church history as taught as being somewhat…truncated…abbreviated…whatever term you will use, what we know (or what many of us soon discover, whether we want to or not), is that Mormonism does have nuance. The protagonists we have been raised with do have serious flaws, and many antagonists have shiny centers. In fact, even if we want to speak about Mormonism today, where it seems as if Mormonism is increasingly black and white and polarized, this status quo of, say, correlation, is itself an ongoing drama of nuance, as has been addressed at length in podcasts like this one on Mormon Stories.

Yet this doesn’t seem to evoke within many the “greatness” of the tradition, of the culture, of the religion. Instead, it seems to make many shrink. It seems to break down others, without offering any care package to start building them back up.

Why is this so? When we look for “truth” and “perfection”, do we eschew and disdain the qualities that make literature and art beautiful, real, and accessible? People say that art mimics life, but when life seems to have all the traits we appreciate in art, why does that disappoint?

I recently read Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman. One of the interesting realities on which Ehrman elaborates is that early Christianity was anything but homogeneous. More specifically, there were many factions, some heterodox, some orthodox, some in the middle. Some of the books of the apocrypha, gnostic texts, and other early Christian writings seemed to support various theological ideas not represented, and in fact, even repressed in what became the canonized New Testament.

A few of particular interest are adoptionist (Christians that thought Jesus was fully mortal), docetic (Christians who thought Jesus was only divine and merely “appeared” to be human), and separationist (Christians who thought Jesus was two separate beings, one Jesus (human) and one Christ (divine)). There were many other heretical ideas that various Christian groups espoused. Some parts of our canonized New Testament were intentionally modified to suppress these views.

Translations in Mormonism

In Mormonism we have a very strange use of the word “translation.” Joseph “translated” the golden plates to produce The Book of Mormon. He “translated” some egyptian scrolls to produce the book of Abraham. In each of these instances I think that “translation” is probably a bit misleading. “Divined,” or “revealed,” perhaps, but “translated” in our modern colloquial usage is quite a stretch in my opinion!

To me, “translation” as it relates to Joseph’s work with the Bible, seems to imply that Joseph was a textual critic, much like Ehrman. That is to say, his goal, like a textual critic, would have been to correct the errors in translation and copying to return the scriptures to their original form. The 8th Article of Faith further gives weight to the idea that Joseph would have been interested correcting the translation, as it was the thing that had errors (as opposed to the original manuscripts themselves).

Yet, it is reasonable to me to question whether or not the original manuscripts of the canonized New Testament actually contained accurate teachings of Jesus. Surely if there were many different theologies, all of which claimed to be Christian, differing radically in their implications for modern Christian understanding, is it safe to assume that the books that “made it” into the canon even represent Jesus’ teachings? What of the process that came to finally accept a “canon” of scriptures? It was a process of gradual (read: hundreds of years) consensus among orthodox Christians (read: the Roman Catholic church), culminating finally in the Council of Trent in the 1500′s! Is this really what we now authoritatively accept as Jesus’ teachings and doctrines? And if Joseph’s goal, as translator, was to revert the text to the original, have we really made much progress in understanding the true Gospel as Christ taught?

Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Fortunately, as I’m sure many of you are silently screaming about, I think the Joseph Smith “Translation” is, again, a misnomer. It seems to me that Joseph had no business being a textual critic (despite being rather schooled in the Bible), and in fact, I don’t think this was Joseph’s goal at all. A casual glance at the Wikipedia article on the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible indicates that Joseph seemed to be using the Bible as an impetus for revelation. From that article, Philip Barlow thinks there are six different types of changes in the JST:

• Long revealed additions having no Biblical parallel (including visions of Moses, Enoch, and passages on Melchizedek).
• “Common Sense” changes.
• “Interpretive additions” often signaled by the phrase “or in other words.”
• “Harmonization” in which Joseph reconciled seemingly conflicting passages.
• Grammatical improvements.
• Unclassifiable changes.

I think this is a fair list, but I would add to it. I think the Doctrine and Covenants is a form of the JST. That is to say, Joseph was not a textual critic, and the JST is not a translation at all. It is a series of revelations that hoped to obtain what should have been in the Bible. I think Joseph was interested in discovering, through revelation, the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ, not in a restoration of the words of the original manuscript of the books that make up our canon.

In this vein, I am completely baffled as to why the LDS church does not adopt the JST and why we don’t rely more on Joseph’s revelations, and less on the Bible. I would even go so far as to argue that Mormonism shouldn’t even really care about the translational accuracy of the Bible. Between The Book of Mormon, D&C, and modern revelation, it seems we have a rich, full theology, that are Christian in their own right!

JST in the LDS Church

The JST manuscripts were preserved by Emma Smith after Joseph’s death. As a result, the then Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (RLDS, now Community of Christ church) published and copyrighted the JST in 1867. The LDS church had only a partial collection of the JST manuscripts.  Ostensibly the LDS church was unable to verify, independently, whether or not the compilation of the JST by the RLDS church was indeed accurate and, possibly, to avoid simply accepting the JST as espoused by the RLDS church (relations have not always been good), perhaps the LDS church just used what it had. That copyright has long since expired, and as recently as 2004 the LDS church, with full support from the Community of Christ church, produced a full facsimile of all the original manuscripts. So why not adopt it now? Here are some possible reasons why we have not adopted the JST:

• Tradishuuuuuun, tradishun! Yep, the LDS church is very slow to part with tradition. As we have officially used the KJV (with a few additions) for many years, and have gone to great lengths to print it and bind it, and have incorporated it into many lesson manuals, perhaps we are just sluggish to change.
• Perhaps we are afraid of the label “Joseph Smith Translation.” We already know that “translation” as used in other contexts is a stretch, so maybe we’re nervous about adopting another, possibly erroneous “translation.”
• Maybe there is some interest in differentiating ourselves from the CoC church. After all, from an LDS perspective, it would be easy to view the CoC church as having gone astray. If we adopt their book, who knows what will happen.
• There may be changes in the full JST that cast doubt on LDS church policies, procedures, rules, revelations, culture, etc. (I have not read the full JST so this may be a stretch).
• Doctrinal salmagundi was the modus operandi in Joseph’s day, but today’s church is quite sensitive to new, unprecendented doctrine and/or changes. We seem to be moving toward mainstream Christianity, and adopting the JST might send us in the other direction.

So what do you think? Was the JST really a “translation” in the sense that Joseph was trying to restore the text to the original, and is this even a useful thing to do for Mormonism? Or was Joseph really more interested in getting to what he believed Jesus actually taught? Why do you think the LDS church has not adopted the JST?

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…

(Mormon May Day was an international response to recent statements by latter-day McCarthyist Glenn Beck that social justice was a code word for communism; and that anyone involved in a church that preached such a deceptive perversion of the Gospel should leave their congregation and find a new place to worship. Participants in Mormon May Day held teach-ins and discussions around the topic of Social Justice and the Gospel on May 1, participated in a fast, and then bore testimony on May 2 in wards around the country.)

Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth: all is Well! (2 Nephi 28:24-25)

The reactions to Mormon May Day were overwhelmingly positive. People came out of the wood work to tell us how much they appreciated our efforts to assert a place in Mormon culture for liberals and radicals. Many people told me that had they known that there were people like us in the church they may not have left. While it became crystal clear to me that our work is sorely needed in the church, some members reacted with sincere curiosity. They had never noticed politics in church, and indeed many consider themselves ‘apolitical’. With these brothers and sisters in mind, the purpose of this post is to better articulate a deep frustration that many liberal and radical Mormons feel when they attend church. That frustration boils down to the fact that moral issues of the political right are constructed as moral absolutes, while the moral issues of the political left are either dismissed as misguided or minimized to the agency of an individual’s personal spirituality. This usually means they don’t get much air time in general conference, Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society. This leaves us with a problem: many Mormons feel that their interpretations of the Gospel are not valid because they do not fall within the contemporary orbit of conservative morality.

Here is what I mean.

Homosexuality and Protecting the Family

In the 2008 debate over gay marriage in California, the LDS church actively campaigned all over the state to defeat a California Supreme court ruling that legalized gay marriage. For many of us from California who sympathize with gay rights, we were horrified as testimony meetings and Sunday school lessons were filled to the brim with election slogans about protecting the family. The family, the rhetoric goes, is under attack from those who would expand the definition of marriage and it is our sacred duty to defeat this most recent affront. Using the civil rights struggles of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as a measure of the strength of families is an excellent example of how a seemingly politically neutral and core aspect of the Gospel such as the family is framed in the moral language of the political right.

Now, this is not a polemical retort against the erosion of family values. I too believe that the family is being weakened, but my worldview causes me to look for the cause in a very different place than those on the political right. It seems to me that if we want to talk seriously about protecting the family as the basic institution of society, then perhaps we should start with the historical impact that free market capitalism has had on the family over the past 200 years. The massive upheavals that occurred in Europe and America—which are being repeated all over the globe through the globalization of production—are a result of the need for a landless and mobile labor force. It is easy for former CEOs and bootstrap entrepreneurs to wax moral about spending more time with our families while their workers scrape by on 60 hours a week. In this sense France is a more family friendly country than ours! Their workers fought for and won generous vacations with pay, universal healthcare, childcare, a 35 work week and living wages. If we are serious about protecting the family why not address issues that allow families to be together more rather than scapegoat the gay community.

Socialism

Glenn Beck follows a long line of Mormon cold warriors. But depending on who you talk to, Mormon radicals may agree with the sentiment that we need to limit the government’s role in our lives. Indeed, many of us at the Mormon Worker would like to eliminate it completely in favor of United Order style communes in every watershed.

While there is a spectrum of opinions on the Mormon left with respect to the proper role of the federal government, many of use see the words of 5 time socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs as representing the true spirit of socialism; not as an absolutist political ideology but as a powerful call to live as Christ taught. While being tried for sedition, Debs, in response to his charges defiantly said:

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” (Sept. 18^th 1918).

Deb’s stirring words are unmistakably inspired by the Sermon on the Mount, and when some of us proclaim sympathy with socialism, that is what we mean. None of us are suggesting that the Gospel is socialist, but there are certainly legitimate overlaps in the call for a classless society and an end to exploitation and Christ’s message of equality and love. Rather than mythologizing the cold war in pre-mortal rhetoric about free agency which implies God’s divine sanction of capitalism, perhaps we should take the words of Catholic Worker founder, Peter Maurin more seriously:

“Christianity has nothing to do

with either modern capitalism

or modern Communism,

for Christianity has

a capitalism of its own

and a communism of its own.

Modern capitalism

is based on property without responsibility,

while Christian capitalism is based on property with responsibility.

Modern communism

is based on poverty through force

while Christian communism

is based on poverty through choice.

For a Christian,

voluntary poverty is the ideal

as exemplified by St. Francis of Assisi,

while private property

is not an absolute right, but a gift

which as such can not be wasted,

but must be administered

for the benefit of God’s children.”

Ecology

We learn in D & C 58:16-20 that the good things of the earth are made to “please the eye, gladden the heart” in addition to the more utilitarian “food and raiment”; and despite being granted full access to the abundance of the earth, we are not to use it “to excess, neither by extortion.” It is significant to me that Joseph Smith’s vision took place in a forest which to us is now a Sacred Grove. What an inspiring refutation of the colonial Christian ambivalence toward nature and the “dark woods” to begin the last dispensation in a grove of trees; a stark rebuke to the Western world when that grove was filled with light on that morning in 1820. Soon thereafter nature would be reenchanted by the transcendentalist, wilderness and environmental movements.

For these reasons, it seems clear that the environmental crisis is a moral crisis; perhaps the most serious our civilization has ever faced. It will not be solved through legislation or adjustments to our consumption habits. So, when I attend church and don’t hear it addressed with unequivocal condemnation I feel confused. Isn’t our duty to care for the earth and each other as important as protecting the family, paying tithing, reading the scriptures, avoiding rated-R movies, family prayer, etc.? While policy prescriptions may be bitterly partisan, the fact remains that our stewardship over the earth’s bounty is a moral responsibility one that deserves the full attention of moral language.

War

Another area where liberal and radical members feel silenced and marginalized is around war and violence. Many church leaders grew up during an era of honorable war; of self-sacrifice for a national cause. However, many in the rising generation feel much more skeptical of leaders who proclaim just war. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply do not fit the narrative of an honorable war in defense of freedom. For many of us they were geopolitical maneuvering that had more to do with oil than bringing freedom to the downtrodden. Many of us were not only critical of the war, but participated in protests and other actions against the war. These actions were carried out not in spite of our religious conviction but because of them and are driven by the admonition in D&C 98:16 to “renounce war and proclaim peace.”

The invasion of Iraq especially, mirrors the kind of preemptive and unrighteous war that is harshly condemned in the Book of Mormon. For many of us, being a pacifist, or nearly so, is a core moral issue and to hear members of the church denounce those who would oppose the war as unpatriotic or worse bad Mormons is disconcerting. Let us be consistently pro-life; valuing not just the lives of unborn children, but also the lives of Iraqi men, women and children caught in the middle of an unjust and illegal occupation.

Healthcare

In Mosiah 4 we read that all the prayer and pious action in world mean nothing if we do not have charity and act upon it. One item on an oft repeated list of charitable to-do’s is “visiting the sick and administering to their relief.” We live in a country where over 40 million people do not have health insurance. Regardless of who you believe should administer healthcare, this is a massive failure on our part to live up to this Gospel commandment. Why, when we read that scripture do we not see the faces of those who cannot afford healthcare? We have allowed the polarizing rhetoric of big vs. small government obscure our duty to the sick.

God’s Politics

Christianity is supposed to transcend party politics, but that does not mean the Gospel is apolitical. Christ did not join Judas and the Zealots or the Essenes in the desert, but he adamantly critiqued the Sadducees and Pharisees for their blatant hypocrisy and priest craft. And while communism may very well have been Satan’s counterfeit, his real genius may have been setting it up as a straw man so that capitalism could slip in the back door. The Gospel is a worldview, not a hobby and I reject any neat delineation of my life as a citizen and my life as a Latter-day Saint. By decontextualizing the scriptures and church history and de-politicizing religious-right moral issues, contemporary Latter-day Saints have (whether they intended to or not) marginalized those who would interpret the Gospel through a distinct political worldview. To argue that the way the Gospel in talked about in church is apolitical or neutral is naïve and disingenuous at best.

Now, let me be clear, I am not calling for an extension of the cultural divide between American liberals and conservatives into the church; as should be clear I am opposed to using the Gospel to justify any political ideology. But as reverend Jim Wallis points out in his amazing book God’s Politics, the separation of church and state, does not mean the separation of our faith from our public life. As Wallis points out, there needs to be a coming together of moral issues on the left and right framed in religious language. This kind of politics, God’s Politics, “would not be an endless argument between personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two together in search of the common good” (76). While, it has been my purpose to expose the political bias of some seemingly apolitical aspects of Mormon culture, I am in agreement with Wallis that the Gospel is not republican or democrat, but a call to radical charity that includes both individual ethics and social justice.

Mormon May Day was meant to bring attention to a problem within Mormon culture. It was not about confrontation or criticism of Church leaders. When liberal and radical Mormons leave the Church we all loose a unique and valid perspective on the Gospel. I am pleading with Mormon culture to recognize many of the above issues as equally important to our salvation. I am also calling on liberal and radical Mormons to step out of their comfort zones and begin to open our mouths in church settings on topics that we feel passionately about and which are central to Christ’s message.