Worst:

1. The MTC: For the first few weeks I didn’t want to be there, and for the last few weeks didn’t want to leave. Something about that doesn’t sit right with me. I also loved singing in groups in the dorms, but the men in charge routinely banned singing in the halls, which I never understood. People also got into arguments over vending machine use on Sundays (really). A few Elders also nearly got into fights playing basketball (really).
2. Getting into an argument with an inactive member. I still feel bad about this one.
3. Developing a near phobia of women. We generally were not supposed to proselyte to women, so I got used to avoiding them. It took me 5 months after I got home to feel comfortable enough to go on a date. I loved the elderly ladies in Japan though. Especially those that would deflect the conversation by offering us something to eat.
4. Arguing with my second companion about why my first companion and I got along better.
5. Seeing people get baptized and then disappear the following week, and then refuse to answer their door.
6. Not being able to baptize an investigator because he was “homeless.” (He had been coming to church for years.)

Best:

1. The MTC: singing in the choir, learning a new language, being around so many like-minded people, and the ice-cream sandwiches. I also really enjoyed most of my teachers. They really seemed to care, and they understood the challenge we were facing learning the language, but they pushed us anyway.
2. Living 24/7 with 15 plus other guys who for the most part were all working every day to be humble, patient, and hard-working. I really learned a lot about living with people, and came out of it a lot slower to be annoyed or upset. Many of my companions taught me valuable lessons just by their example. Even the companions I didn’t always get along with were great missionaries. Not a bad seed among them. I was blessed in that department.
3. Finding a testimony of Christ – It took wearing His name on my shirt, reading Jesus The Christ two times (I love that book, even though Craig hates it, haha!), and nearly two years of teaching, but it finally happened.
4. My mission presidents. They were very different from each other, but great men that I still admire today. I also learned valuable lessons about church leaders, such as: they often differ in opinions.
5. Learning a new language and getting to know a new culture.
6. Seeing people change their lives for the better. Seeing them still doing well two years later when I went back.
7. Making one of the best investments of my life. The personal growth and experiences of my mission were greater than any years of college and graduate school I have had (7 so far, although my marriage and having my kids has been better!).

What are the best and worst experiences of your mission?

“You need to do things that scare you.”

Somehow I managed to volunteer to speak in sacrament meeting the following week. All in nihongo, of course.

That advice stayed with me throughout my mission and into the next phase of my life:

• During undergrad I took some acting classes, precisely because I am normally shy and introverted, and the thought of acting both excited and TERRIFIED me. After a rocky start, I loved it.
• Coming home from my mission I was at a book store and saw the book “The Places that Scare You” by Pema Chödrön. Of course, I bought it immediately.
• I agreed to sing in a quartet in sacrament meeting a few years ago. I had never done this before (not in a small group, anyway).
• I have two kids. The first time around was really scary. I love it now.
• I turned down an offer to move back near family for the next round of grad school, for a slightly better (but who knows?) offer to move further away.
• I started working with foster kids precisely because I had no desire to work with adolescents, and generally found them to be intimidating. Now I work with juvenile offenders who punch people and deal drugs and throw rocks at houses. It’s still a little scary, but I’m learning.

In my life, I generally follow this principle – If something I know would be good for me also happens to scare me, I seek it out, I try to experience it. I owe much of my growth to that Zone Leader, on that morning in Japan, from a simple sentence, spoken with authority and love: “Do things that scare you.”

What was the best advice you ever received? What things scare you that you think you should probably do?

The story of David and Jonathan is one of the most inspiring examples of true friendship anywhere.  Our LDS SS manual firmly places this lesson within the mainstream view of Biblical exegesis, presenting the two as strong personal and platonic friends.  As I studied the covenant made between these young men in 1 Samuel 18, I was touched by the loyalty shown by the young Jonathan, because he “loved [David] as his own soul.”  Because of this love, Jonathan relinquishes his hopes for his father’s throne in deference to God’s choice.  In a symbolic and ceremonial gesture, Jonathan strips off his robe, which represents the authority he holds to succeed his father, King Saul, and gives it to David.  He also gives David his sword and his bow, representing his military prerogative; and his girdle, which symbolizes spiritual truths and the kingdom of God.

But other writers, beginning with Homer and continuing to the present day, have noted the strong elements of intimacy and eroticism within the relationship.  David’s love for Jonathan is described as “wonderful, passing the love of women.”  Saul also reprimands Jonathan at the dinner table, accusing him that “thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.”  Martti Nissinen concludes that this “choosing (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.  Some also interpret this as Saul’s caution that choosing David as a lover meant that Jonathan could not produce an heir to the throne. There is also an exchange pointing to 1 Samuel 18:21. Here Saul tells David that when he marries Michal he will become his son-in-law for the second time.  There is reason to suppose the union of Jonathan and David represents the first.

What does it mean that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David?

In trying to interpret the story of these two Biblical figures, I am greatly influenced by my reading of Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans.  In this book, Quinn describes a nineteenth-century Mormon culture far more hospitable to and tolerant of same-sex relationships than that of modern Mormonism, which he regards as “homophobic.”  He gives several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon couples he believes were homosexual.  But in doing so, he also admits of a world and an era where emotional intimacy and physical closeness of same-sex friends did NOT involve homoeroticism.  He gives examples of letters written in the nineteenth century between platonic friends which contained emotional intensity and passionate references.  Same-sex friends held hands, kissed each other on the lips, and sometimes slept in the same bed for years at a time. These things are more aptly described as “homosociality.”   Reading about this phenomenon gave me an insight into the world view of previous ages that I had not understood before reading the book.

At times when I read the story of David and Jonathan through my twenty-first-century lens, I have wondered if these men were not physically intimate.  The words and images used to describe their relationship are passionate, ardent, concupiscent.  But reading about some of the homosocial behaviors Quinn describes has convinced me that David and Jonathan were not gay.  I agree with Quinn that too many Americans find homosociality frightening. Some of my returned-missionary friends have spoken with embarrassment of the strong male bonding they experienced on their missions.  They recall vivid episodes involving platonic intimacy — walking arm-in-arm, embracing, and other emotional and physical affection.  We are suspicious and uncomfortable with these things in our modern paradigm.  But homosociality can be an enlightening concept to consider.  I’m glad this relationship is included among all of the other unusual associations described in the Old Testament!

BONUS: The woodcut of Jonathan and David pictured below may be astonishingly evocative, both to LDS members endowed before 1990 and to those familiar with Masonic ritual.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/17/homosociality-and-the-friendship-between-david-and-jonathan/feed/ 22 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/31/mormon-missionaries-die-in-romania/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/01/31/mormon-missionaries-die-in-romania/#comments Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:30:25 +0000 Mormon Heretic http://mormonmatters.org/?p=9638 I want to let everyone know of a very unfortunate situation in Romania.  According to this Deseret News article, Elder McKay Choy Burrows, 20, of Highland, Utah, and Elder Jace Edwards Davis, 20, of Logandale, Nevada, died from accidental natural gas asphyxiation due to a gas leak in their apartment sometime Friday night in Romania.  It’s terrible that such a seemingly preventable tragedy happened to these 2 young men.

In the following video which lasts about 2 minutes, Jean talks about the stigma some members may feel if they choose a civil wedding ceremony. The other preseding videos last approximately 2 minutes each.

Temple Wedding Petition 3 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 1 Here

Temple Wedding Petition 2 Here

Temple Wedding Petition .org here

The actual petition is found here

I was raised in a part member family and remember when my brother was married my parents were disappointed that they weren’t able to go to the temple and see their son get married. It would have been nice for our family to have seen it. I wonder if it makes non- members, or those on the fringe, feel excluded from the church and may damper future missionary work with families. I live in England and it’s the law that there is a civil wedding which usually takes place in the chapel.

Recently a nephew was married and was schedueled to get married in the Salt Lake temple. Because much of the family couldn’t witness the wedding they decided last minute to have a civil wedding. He and his wife since their marriage enjoy going to the temple but have to wait a year now to be married in the temple.

I wonder if there is a church loophol if you want your non- member family to see your wedding you could get married in America and fly to a country where the church allows civil marriages followed by a temple marriage after?

What are your thoughts and experiences?

Just to make it very clear that there is no advocacy on the part of MM.

I consider all of these women my friends and so we started chatting. As we bemoaned the unfortunate decline of the “spare the rod, spoil the child” philosophy, we noticed the elders walking down the hall. One of the women commented on how cute they were, but followed up with how young they looked. We all kind of giggled, but it opened up a discussion on how your perspective changes on something that is essentially unchanging. For the most part, missionaries are 19-21 and that’s how its been for decades, but how those young men are viewed drastically changes over time.

When I was a young girl, having the missionaries over for dinner was a blast. They were the best playmates ever. They ate like they had two hollow legs and would just rough house(way before the more recent guidelines that prohibit such things)and act goofy until they had to go home and make curfew. Once you graduate from Primary into the Young Womens program these elders morph into demigod-like status. They are so cute and so funny and so cool and you just can’t wait until you can date and marry your own RM. Beehive, Mia Maid(you can date!), and then finally Laurel, when dating a returned missionary is often a reality. Now they are potential husbands so you are sizing them up as breeding stock and providers. This phase will last for a few months to a few years. Maybe you will go to BYU for your MRS degree, maybe you will meet your eternal companion at FHE in your singles ward. There are so many ways it can happen, but it usually ends with your standing in a receiving line and your closest friends and family eating those chalky pastel mints and drinking ice water out of a punch bowl. Then, if you have a real testimony, you give birth to your own little missionary nine months later. The perspective changes and your focus shifts to raising the next generation of missionaries.

My perspective now? Perspective is a funny thing. The girls from my Laurel class are now sending their sons on missions. One of those girls just welcomed her oldest son back from serving an honorable mission in Argentina. Technically, I am old enough to be the mother of a returned missionary, yet I shamelessly flirt with them via my blog. In my defense, Jake started it, but…

What seemingly unchanging things within the church changed for you, depending on your perspective?

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

Smith: “Look who’s in.”

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

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

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

Smith: “He’s the only one.”

Lawler: “He’s from Iran?”

Smith: “I guess so.”

Lawler: “That Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

Lawler: “The real Iran?”

Smith: “Yes.”

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

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

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

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

Smith: “Especially the post players.

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

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

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

- Sacrificing Principle for Profit: Church Wildlife Enterprises and Hunting Preserves, Sunstone Magazine

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Perhaps unlike other Church business enterprises, however, is the fact that missionaries were sent to “serve God in a most unusual way,” according to this July, 2000 article on Deseret News about the LDS Church’s hunting preserves.

According to the information packet from Deseret Land and Livestock obtained by the Sunstone speaker on this podcast, a guided archery hunt to bag an elk can fetch $11,500 plus tax and license, as of the year 2001.  (A more detailed price list can be accessed at around the 28 minute mark of the podcast.) When asked in a letter by concerned members of the Church how the hunting preserves could be ethically justified, the Presiding Bishopric (who oversees the hunting preserves) offered no response or explanation.

Now, many Mormons own a gun and many go hunting.  Millions of Americans go hunting every year and it’s a big industry.  So what’s the problem with the Church getting in on the profits?  Well, when we consider LDS scripture and statements by General Authorities such as the following, it’s clear that we’re not “just another hunting enterprise:”

“And surely, blood shall not be shed, only for meat, to save your lives; and the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.”  (Genesis 9:11, JST)

“I never could see why a man should be imbued with a blood-thirsty desire to kill and destroy animal life. I have known men—and they still exist among us—who enjoy what is, to them, the ‘sport’ of hunting birds and slaying them by the hundreds, and who will come in after a day’s sport boasting of how many harmless birds they have had the skill to slaughter … I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong.” (President Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, Vol. 1, pp. 371-372)

“Now, I would like to add some of my feelings concerning the unnecessary shedding of blood and destruction of life … And not less with reference to the killing of innocent birds is the wildlife of our country that live upon the vermin that are indeed enemies to the farmer and to mankind. It is not only wicked to destroy them, it is a shame, in my opinion. I think that this principle should extend not only to the bird life but to the life of all animals … because God gave it to them, and they were to be used only, as I understand, for food and to supply the needs of men.” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Fundamental Principles to Ponder and Live,” The Ensign, November 1978, p. 45)

“Killing for sport is wrong…One day, to while away the slowly passing hours, I took my gun with the intention of indulging in a little amusement in hunting turkeys… From boyhood I had been particularly, and I may say strangely, attached to a gun. Hunting in the forests of Ohio was a pastime that to me possessed the most fascinating attractions. It never occurred to my mind that it was wrong-that indulging in “what was sport to me was death to them;” that in shooting turkeys, squirrels, etc., I was taking life that I could not give; therefore I indulged in the murderous sport without the least compunction of conscience.”  (Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, p.188-189)

Something happened between the days that those statements were made and the present day where sport hunting for profit within the Church was suddenly considered to be a good idea — so much so that missionaries were initially sent to tend to the grounds.  How did we get from the days where the Church fostered such a high regard for animal life that Joseph Smith prevented the unnecessary killing of rattlesnakes; when the pioneers would lay their hands upon their oxen to bless them; when their animals were valued as they were the key to their survival, and hunting was done only because it was necessary to sustain their lives — to the days when they’re hunted down for recreation and profit?  What does that say about our culture and our religion? 

Did I miss a change in LDS teaching concerning reverence for the Lord’s animal creations?  Or is the only change that we’ve put a price on their heads?

George Q. Cannon, counselor in the First Presidency under Brigham Young and editor of the Juvenile Instructor, probably wrote more concerning the humane treatment of animals than any member of the Church.  In 1868 he began writing editorials advocating kindness to animals and in 1897 he founded a Sunday School-sponsored “Humane Day,” which became an annual event.  Most members of the Church know nothing about it, but this program continued in the Church for the next twenty years.

It is perhaps a bit ironic that leaders of the Church — in the days of when members were more dependent on animals for their food and clothing — were so frequently vocal about the humane treatment of animals, emphasizing that we should never take their lives unless it is to save our own, whereas today — when we are much less dependent on animals for our survival, and are supposedly much more enlightened on the subject of animal intelligence, emotion, and sensitivity to pain – the leaders of the Church are mostly silent on the issue of animal welfare and see fit to send missionaries to tend to sport hunting grounds. 

 In the Deseret News article, referring to Elder Huff, who tended to Westlake, it says:

“Instead of knocking on doors, he spends his time bush- whacking in the thick brush along the southwest shores of Utah Lake, looking for the perfect place to nurture his birds by planting numerous stands of corn, rye and other grains….

Large holding tanks that are no longer used for farming now provide high-profile watering holes throughout the game preserve, attracting not only birds but rabbits, coyotes, deer and even antelope.”

Interestingly enough, President Joseph F. Smith made a very specific statement referring directly to hunting elk, deer and antelope, among others:

“I do not believe any man should kill animals or birds unless he needs them for food, and then he should not kill innocent little birds that are not intended for food for man. I think it is wicked for men to thirst in their souls to kill almost everything which possesses animal life. It is wrong. I have been surprised at prominent men whom I have seen whose very souls seemed to be athirst for the shedding of animal blood. They go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for? “Just the fun of it!” Not that they are hungry and need the flesh of their prey, but just because they love to shoot and to destroy life. I am a firm believer, with reference to these things, in the simple words of one of the poets:

“Take not way the life you cannot give,
For all things have an equal right to live.”

Answers to Gospel Questions, Vol.4, p.48

President Smith seems to predict with amazing accuracy what is going on at places like Westlake, where ”prominent men,” (perhaps the “doctors, dentists and attorneys from Payson north to Ogden, including Park City,” that Elder Huff refers to in the Deseret News article) seem to be so “athirst for the shedding of animal blood” that they will literally spend tens of thousands of dollars to “go off hunting deer, antelope, elk, anything they can find, and what for?  Just the fun of it!”

Indeed, a very elite, lucrative kind of “fun” that had (as of 2001) a six-year waiting list.

Information about these hunting preserves is very sparse, but according to Jim Catano, who contacted the Church’s public affairs department and was “told by the director that he would answer my questions, a second-tier media handler was assigned to inform me weeks later that they would not answer any of the questions I’d submitted in preparation for this article.”  (The article he was referring to can be accessed here.)  After deciding to drop into Westlake unannounced and being given a tour by manager Kevin Albrecht, he found out the following in 2001:

“Our efforts in bringing our opposition to the attention of the Church hierarchy have already had an impact. Not only do missionaries no longer staff the facility but “canned hunts” in which birds that have been raised in captivity are released just before the hunters go in are no longer sponsored. Kevin said he had had several meetings with upper management as a result of our activism, and canned hunts were one of the first things to be changed.

He told me that in a meeting he recently attended of commercial hunting facility managers, people from other parts of the country were surprised how low the daily bag limit is (2 per day as opposed to “as many as you can shoot for a price”) and that the facility no longer plants hatched birds but relies only on wild reproduction. He informed me how strict rule enforcement is and that members must report birds they think they’ve wounded but can’t find as part of their daily limit. He’s fairly confident that members do this although I have my doubts that all do.”

Since information about these preserves is limited, I decided to get in contact with Jim in order to ask him whether he had any new information since his update in 2001.  He said that he had contacted Farm Management Corporation (wholly owned by the LDS Church to run its farm properties) sometime prior to 2003, but they “refused to talk to me and give me any more information on the subject at a certain point.”

So, while there have been positive changes as the result of protest about the initial practice of canned hunting, Jim says that it “didn’t change (his) mind about the merits of the existence of this facility.”  The end result has remained unchanged: animals being hunted down for Church profit.

This isn’t about sustaining the lives of doctors and lawyers or meat going to waste.  Who eats coyote?  And $11,500 for a few elk steaks?  This is about the number of animals being purposely multiplied by creating the perfect conditions and attracting them to the preseve for the purpose of being killed “just for fun” – not because they need the flesh to live on, as President Smith stated above. 

Ironically, The Humane Society of the United States  has a webpage dedicated to praising the LDS Church for its teachings about animal life.  Do we deserve the praise?  Or have we given nothing but lip service to our supposed respect for God’s creations and their right to life?

Despite past teachings and statements by General Authorities on the subject of hunting and the taking of animal life, many of you have no personal problem with sport hunting.  Obviously, you have the legal right to hunt and I realize that I’m unlikely to change your personal views on the matter.  I ask you, however, whether you would be troubled by any of the following purely hypothetical situations:

• The Church preaches against alcohol consumption, but purchases a vineyard in California and profits from the sale of the grapes being harvested to produce wine.
• The Church teaches that pornography is wrong, but has a stake in a popular fashion magazine featuring scantily-clothed women in sexual poses.
• The Church opposes abortion but owns property in Florida that an abortion clinic rents.

Would you be prepared to defend these hypothetical scenarios in the same way that you defend the Church’s hunting preserves?

Of all the good ways to make a buck, is this the best we can do?  Are we or are we not, as a Church, sacrificing principle for profit?

Gerald E. Jones stated the following in in an Ensign article from August, 1972 called “The Gospel And Animals:”

“The prophets have been consistent in reminding men of their duty to the animal world. As the Lord told Noah, “… the blood of every beast will I require at your hands.” (JST, Gen. 9:11.) It is our sacred stewardship to care for the earth and all the creatures on it.”

The prophets have been consistent.  What about the Church?

I’ll leave you with a quote from Joseph F. Smith from an editorial published in the Juvenile Instructor in April, 1927:

“… The unnecessary destruction of life is a distinct spiritual loss to the human family. Men cannot worship the Creator and look with careless indifference upon his creations. The love of all life helps man to the enjoyment of a better life. It exalts the spiritual nature of those in need of divine favor.”

OK Paul technically isn’t exactly an international DJ, not unless you consider that you can listen to his interviews on line.

He’s a returned missionary and member of the Grays Ward in the Romford Stake Essex England.  Paul got the show after being a presenter at Hospital Radio Chelmsford for a year and chased a local station for airtime:

“When I was asked to join Phoenix FM the station manager warned me that radio presenting wasn’t all easy but in fact involved a lot of voluntary service too.  I responded that I was a missionary in France for 2 years for the church and was used to giving service to others, as well as being actively involved in the church weekly.  The station manager was intrigued by this and I was invited to the station to explain more about my religious beliefs and the voluntary service I had done in France.  I was then offered the chance to begin a brand new religious show once a week that they had been wanting to start but couldn’t find anyone with the religious background to do it.  I put together the idea for a chat show where he would bring in local religious leaders and ask them about their beliefs on air and their views on current issues.”

Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson from the Church of Scientology – Listen   here

Highlights:

10 million members around the world. Their anti-drug program “Say no to drugs say yes to life”.  Human rights educational programme and other great work they do in the community.  We discussed the 8 dynamics, the founder of the church L. Ronald Hubbard and where the word “Scientology” comes from.

The core beliefs of the church of Scientology are:

Man is a spirit, he has lived before and that man is good. Through wisdom and knowledge man can improve any area of his life he wants. Scientology is all denominational and non-conversionary and members bring with them their own beliefs.

Great Interviews ( All the ads and music have been stripped out)

Habibur Rahman & Forad Edu – Islam / Alfurqaan Foundation
Father Matthew Bemand – St Thomas Church of England
Councillor Dudley Payne – Mayor of Brentwood
Mark Pinchin and Ian Clarkson – Scientology / Jive Aces
Ed Wellman – PhoenixFM Monday Classics
Richard Burch – Brentwood Buddhist Society
Chris Day – Crown Street Christian Fellowship
Reverand Peter Thomas (Baptist)
Reverand Trevor Jamison (United Reformed Church)
Julian May – ELIM
Father Paul Keane – Brentwood Catholic Cathedral
Bishop David Barter

The show can be seen at www.phoenixfm.com/proverbs98.php

Let us know your views

The second reason (I am interested in the possibility of returning a bit of the former fire of earlier Mormonism to the current church) lifts the service I attended from the background of Mormon history and sets it against the backdrop of the LDS future. As I mentioned parenthetically in my previous post, one of the talks used in the Sacrament Meeting I attended was one given originally by David McKay. As I understand it, President McKay was the prophet who set the LDS on its modern missionary explosion. Prior to his time Mormonism was largely confined to the mountain west. McKay, however, had a vision of a broader reach and that was the impetus for the current status of the LDS as a nascent worldwide religious community.

This in turn raises the issue of missionary activity. The talk which McKay had given perceptively realized that sending out missionaries would not, by itself, achieve the desired ends. Every Saint needed to see him or herself as a missionary, bearing witness and providing contacts for the “tie guys” to follow up on. Keep this thought on the back burner for a minute.

Just long enough ago for me to forget the source, I read an article which addressed some of the difficulties LDS missionaries abroad were facing. One was the explosive growth of Pentecostalism, another was the lack of well formed LDS communities, a third was the disadvantage of missionary “roll over” especially when contrasted with the long term work of Protestant and Catholic missionaries, and the last was the lack of indigenous expression in Mormon worship. One former African Mormon convert said that the reason he gave up on the LDS was that it just wasn’t African.

Now add in the words of Gladys Knight to Gordon Hinkley, “I like everything about the Mormon Church except the music.” Knight has since developed a Latter Day Saint gospel choir which, significantly, has been very effective at getting contacts for missionaries. Let that sink in a minute: a black gospel style choir is proving very effective in getting a hearing for the gospel message as understood by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Bring McKay’s vision back into the mix. I would suggest (and here my outsider standing might be of particular import since it is non Mormons that you wish to attract) that if the LDS is going to successfully jump to the next level of its growth then two related things might need to happen. One is a greater sensitivity and openness to the process of inculturation. The other is a greater emphasis  (or rediscovery) of the power of spiritual encounter and ongoing revelation. The two are obviously related. It isn’t likely that many people are going to have a spiritual encounter if they find the delivery and expression of the gospel excessively foreign. Going the other way, spiritual encounter is most easily encouraged, nurtured, and spread when it incorporates as much as possible of the individual’s culture.

These two principles are at the heart of the modern missionary movement which has seen the dramatic growth of Christianity throughout the non western world. Once missionaries started concentrating on making disciples of Christ instead of exporting English or American or Italian culture they started doing very well. Indeed, the core of Christianity now lies south of the equator in Asia, Africa, and South America rather than in its old bastions of Europe and the United States.

From talking with a local ward leader, I know that maintaining sound doctrine is of paramount importance in the LDS. This makes the prospect of inculturation and greater freedom of expression in worship and witness a bit threatening. One does not wish to lose control of what is said and done in the name of the LDS and/or watering down the restored gospel. Having both evangelical and Roman Catholic roots, I understand the concern and (especially as a guest in this venue) I do not want to make light of it.

Nevertheless, I would point out that the Roman Catholic Church with 1.2 billion very diverse people has still managed to maintain its historic teaching and practice while allowing for considerable local color and expression. The Mass has proven flexible enough to keep its basic structure very much intact and yet still accommodate a plethora of indigenous customs and music. The music of Bach or Brubeck are both entirely capable of conveying the ancient mystery of Christ’s body and blood. So are the genres of soul, black gospel, and bluegrass.

Evangelicals have likewise managed to keep to a pretty rigid orthodoxy while allowing for all sorts of worship expression. Curiously, I have personally found that the more creative the worship, the more traditional the teaching. What makes this particularly interesting is the fact that evangelicalism is a broad based movement with no central authority.

I should think that if a church the size of the Roman Catholic communion and a movement as decentralized as Evangelicalism can keep their doctrinal commitments while allowing freedom for local expression, then surely the LDS with its off the charts organizational genius could do the same.

I would also suggest that by reclaiming some of its early heritage, the LDS could speak more powerfully to the post modern world where heart tends to trump head and where music often speaks most powerfully than sermon. (As a preacher I mourn this development, but I do not dispute its veracity.)

To put it another way, I found the service that morning to be very similar to a Unitarian Universalist service. Given that the UU is over the top rationalistic with a very strong secularist element, this is really saying something. I would think that the LDS, a movement rooted in prophecy and revelation, would offer a very different kind of service from the UU, a movement rooted in rationalism.

Now again I want to underscore the fact that I write as a non Mormon and I recognize the fact that there must be something about the sacrament meeting that does work and that the current missionary strategy has proven quite effective. Consequently it could be very well argued that there is no point messing with success and I would not object in the least if you, the reader, took that position.

But I would humbly suggest that maybe the broader vision of David McKay, the insights and success of Gladys Knight and her gospel choir, and the early roots of the LDS Church itself might raise some heretofore unconsidered possibilities for reaching more people from different backgrounds. I would also suggest that these same possibilities for more effective mission might also bring the sacrament meeting and the principle of ongoing revelation into greater practical coherence.

In corporate America, misconduct is often characterized as a violation of a law, rule, regulation and/or a direct threat to public interest, such as fraud, health/safety violations, and corruption.  Whistle-blower protection is a serious concern as others inside an organization tend to “shoot the messenger” when it comes to whistle-blowers.  Major corporations are wise to provide options and multiple complaint mechanisms to handle internal complaints.  I work for one such organization.  There are many vehicles to handle internal complaints:  employee surveys, human resources groups (several different kinds), an ombuds office, online employee discussion forums that allow anonymous participation, and a very large compliance and legal department to proactively police regulatory issues.

In my experience, the vast majority of what gets reported as “misconduct” is really something else, such as:

• a complainant with hurt feelings
• the result of poor relationship or communication skills (either on the part of the complainant or a direct leader or some other third party); in some cases, this alleged misconduct is actual misconduct, but not always.
• a misunderstanding of what the laws and regulations are or what the supposed “misconduct” activity entailed
• an act of vengeance (e.g. the complainant hopes to exact revenge on another employee or leader using the complaint vehicle as a weapon)

That is not always the case, of course, which is why it’s worth it to sift through hundreds of complaints to find the one that is a real issue for the company and that requires intervention.  To the complainant, the complaint is very serious and needs to be resolved to their satisfaction.  In reality, it’s nearly impossible to separate the complaint from the complainant.  The more neutral the complainant, the more valuable the complaint.  Some of these factors make the complainant seem less neutral:

• The complainant wants something of personal benefit as a result of the complaint.
• The complainant is vengeful toward individuals they accuse of wrong-doing or there is a known personality conflict between them and an accused party.
• The complainant has a history of making complaints.
• If they no longer have any ties to the organization (an ex-insider), that complaint might also seem suspect to insiders, regardless of how neutrally the complaint is phrased.

So, when it comes to complaints within the organization of the church, how do we do?  Here are some areas where I think we do well:

• Complaints are handled at the lowest level possible.
• Complaints are generally handled in confidence (obviously, there are individuals who have blown this, but IME, local leaders tend to take confidentiality to extremes).
• There is a focus on accountability (LDS scriptures actually instruct members to handle personal conflicts between them and the other party).
• Actual misconduct complaints (e.g. fraud, legal, etc.) are generally taken very seriously and actions to remedy are easy to handle swiftly due to the lay clergy aspect of the church.

Where do we sometimes fall down?

• Females alleging sexual misconduct may find the process extra difficult due to the lack of female representation in church courts.  A female who already feels violated may have a difficult time in addressing an all-male leadership with painful details that are necessary to assess the situation.
• There is very little effective access to top levels of the organization.  This is really only an issue if the complaint is about local leadership or if the complaint has organizational implications.  We should bear in mind that this is how the Catholic church got into trouble over the priest molestation scandals–by pushing too much to local levels to handle and not realizing they had an institutional problem before it was too late.
• Organizations with deep pockets are often the target of spurious law suits which makes identifying the serious cases more difficult.
• Disclosures about financial and legal activities are either vague or considered confidential.  But again, this is often the case in a corporation as well.  While financial disclosure of a publicly-traded company is more open, airing dirty laundry over minor litigations is not.
• Local leaders may lack the skill to assess and deal with issues and may hold complainants at bay to cover their ineptitude.  They may use unrighteous dominion to punish the complainant.  And there is some open question about the church’s culpability when an untrained lay clergy makes a local error in judgment.
• Individuals feel guilty for complaining in a religious structure.  This is true of all churches, but added to it is our lay clergy.  It’s harder to complain about an unpaid volunteer.
• Whistle-blowers may not be taken seriously if they are not considered neutral or are frequent complainers.  But this is true in all human organizations, and is the basis for the age-old story The Boy Who Cried Wolf.  There’s sometimes a reason the messenger gets shot.

So, what do you think?  Do we do a good job dealing with complaints or not?  Do we do a better job with more severe complaints or minor issues?  What should we do to improve how we handle complaints or is the system working just fine?  Discuss.

What advice would you have me give our Bishops? 

As a quick explanation, we have our monthly bishops training meeting next week, and after we finished the standard summary of the current investigators and their individual needs our Stake President turned the discussion to the upcoming meeting with the bishops.  We discussed a number of things relative to missionary work, and then, right before he left to do other Stake President stuff, he left the Missionary Committee with a charge.  He said:

I want you to give me some concrete suggestions for what to ask of our Bishops to improve missionary work in our stake.

The following is an explanation of the three things we are suggesting to him, with a brief explanation of why we are making those suggestions:

1) Instruct the Bishops to focus our Sacrament Meetings on Christ.

We had mentioned this when the Stake President still was with us, but we were unanimous that the best thing we can do to share the Gospel with others at the ward level is to have deeply spiritual Sacrament Meetings – and we all felt like too many talks were focused on topics that, while important as practical matters, were better suited for Relief Society and Priesthood meeting.  We talked of how we too often lose sight of the unique purpose of a meeting that is supposed to focus on WORSHIP – by introducing topics that are not “worshipful”.  We mentioned specifically that the following topics are not appropriate for Sacrament Meeting:

a) Food Storage (unanimous groans about that as a topic)

b) “Missionary Work” (one very dedicated, ultra-conservative High Councilor said he “withdraws” emotionally whenever “missionary work” is the topic of a talk – and, remember, this was the Missionary Committee)

c) Tithing (a spiritual law, but not focused on Christ)

d) anything else that is “programmatic” and not focused on becoming Christ-like

We talked of making sure each and every topic includes, at the very least, the qualifier, “and how understanding and living this principle (or developing this characteristic) will help me become more like Christ”.  We also talked of working to eliminate travelogues, thank-amonies and quasi-talks from Fast and Testimony Meeting.

2) Instruct the Bishops to personally set an example for the members of love and fellowship of ALL who walk through the doors at church.

Do this in part by ending all administrative meetings no later than 15 minutes before the start of Sacrament Meeting, spending at least 10 minutes mingling with those who are attending Sacrament Meeting each week, seeking out and just being friendly with EVERYONE not known personally, and being seated on the stand at least 5 minutes before the meeting starts – reverently listening to the prelude music and asking the congregation to do the same.

3) Ask the Bishops to instruct their Ward Councils and Activities Committees to coordinate regular activities around service opportunities in their communities.

Don’t add “extra” activities, but replace most of the activities they generally do currently.  Rather than have a ward dinner and talent show held in the cultural hall, for example, provide a dinner and talent show at a retirement community, nursing home or homeless shelter.  Don’t create more activities; rather, be less exclusive and insular – focusing the activities on helping and serving others.

Most of our conversation focused on helping members let go of referring to “doing missionary work” and begin to see it instead as “sharing the Gospel”.

So, for this post, I ask the same question:

With regard to “missionary work”, what advice would you give our Bishops?

Born under the name of Succat, Patrick grew up in as a wealthy Roman Citizen in what is now Britain.  In 410 AD, barbarians attacked Rome.  Troops were recalled to fight the invasion, leaving Britain exposed to marauders.  Patrick was carried away as a 16 year old slave to Irish warlords, where he worked guarding sheep for six years.  In a dream, he was told by God to flee, and returned to his native home.

He was never comfortable at home, and had another dream entailing a vision of the Irish people. They asked him, with one voice, to return to them and to bring them the word of God.  He prepared for 12 years, and finally returned as a missionary bishop.  The religion of that time in Ireland was Druidic.  He angered Druidic priests by lighting a fire on a mountain to celebrate Easter.

Legends about St. Patrick abound. It is said that he used the shamrock to explain the trinity, and that he drove the snakes from Ireland. By the time of Patrick’s death in 461, Ireland was overwhelmingly Christian. A society of Irish monks would prove vital to saving western history and culture.

In the chaos of the barbarian invasions, all the great libraries of Western Europe were destroyed. Irish monks, who had been illiterate prior to Patrick’s missionary journey, devoted themselves to copying and preserving the literature of the vanishing culture.

Paul L Maier, professor of History, Western Michigan University states, ‘I think it would be safe to say that every book written before the year 1000 AD—that includes all of the Greco-Roman classics, that includes all of Holy Scripture, Old and New Testaments, that includes all the theological works, from the Jewish side, that includes Josephus, Augustin or anyone else, we would not have these books today, if it had not been for the manuscript recopying in these monasteries.’

It seems that Mormons often look down on other religions when we refer to the Apostasy.  I can remember attending a Lutheran Bible Study class years ago.  When I spoke to the Lutheran priest, he said that Mormons act like nothing happened between 100 AD and 1830.  He found that Mormons were completely unaware of most history prior to 1830, and I must say I still agree with him.  I have endeavored to learn more.

Without St Patrick, and the conversion of Ireland, Christianity would have lost some priceless treasures that all Christians enjoy.  I think St Patrick’s missionary stories should be better known, and lauded by all Christians.  I think his life is an example of Christian service, and forgiveness, that we all should emulate.

From the Manual

Heber C. Kimball, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve, recalled: “About the first day of June 1837, the Prophet Joseph came to me, while I was seated in … the Temple, in Kirtland, and whispering to me, said, ‘Brother Heber, the Spirit of the Lord has whispered to me, “Let my servant Heber go to England and proclaim my gospel and open the door of salvation to that nation.” ’ ” (Deseret News 1858). Elder Kimball was overwhelmed by the thought of such an undertaking: “I felt myself one of the very weakest of God’s servants. I asked Joseph what I should say when I got there; he told me to go to the Lord and He would guide me, and speak through me by the same spirit that [directed] him.” (Deseret News 1862)

The Prophet also extended calls to Orson Hyde, Willard Richards, and Joseph Fielding in Kirtland, and to Isaac Russell, John Snyder, and John Goodson in Toronto, Canada. These brethren were to join Elder Kimball on his mission to England. Gathering in New York City, they sailed on the ship Garrick for Great Britain on July 1, 1837. This first mission outside of North America brought some 2,000 converts into the Church during the missionaries’ first year in England. Elder Kimball wrote joyfully to the Prophet: “Glory to God, Joseph, the Lord is with us among the nations!” (Conference Report 1920)

A second apostolic mission to Britain, involving most members of the Twelve under the leadership of Brigham Young, was directed by the Prophet from Nauvoo. Leaving in the fall of 1839, the Twelve arrived in England in 1840. There they began a labor that by 1841 would bring over 6,000 converts into the Church, fulfilling the Lord’s promise that He would do “something new” for the salvation of His Church.

Comments and Questions.

Ok, so that’s 8,000 converts, roughly 15 missionaries, in 2 years, with no MTC, no previous LDS church members in England, no correlated discussions, and no copies of the Book of Mormon to give out, though people could probably purchase them.  What can we learn from these early missionary efforts?

I look back at my mission.  We had approximately 180 missionaries at all times, and I believe we had about 500-600 baptisms in 2 years in my mission.  What other differences are there between our modern day missionary program and these early apostles missions?  Would it help to have older missionaries?

Foundation for foreign missions.

From Nauvoo, Joseph Smith continued to send missionaries throughout the world. Elder Orson Hyde landed in England in 1841 and later continued his assigned mission to Jerusalem. He carried a letter of recommendation from Joseph Smith recognizing “the bearer of these presents, a faithful and worthy minister of Jesus Christ, to be our agent and representative in foreign lands, to … converse with the priests, rulers and Elders of the Jews.” (Times and Seasons, Apr. 1840) On October 24, 1841, Elder Hyde knelt on Jerusalem’s Mount of Olives and petitioned Heavenly Father to dedicate and consecrate the land “for the gathering together of Judah’s scattered remnants, according to the predictions of the holy prophets.” (Orson Hyde, A Voice from Jerusalem, or a Sketch of the Travels and Ministry of Elder Orson Hyde (1842), p. 29) Elder Hyde then made his way to Germany, where he laid an initial foundation for the growth of the Church there.

On May 11, 1843, the Prophet called Elders Addison Pratt, Noah Rogers, Benjamin F. Grouard, and Knowlton F. Hanks to perform missions to the islands of the South Pacific. This was the first mission of the Church anywhere in that vast region. Elder Hanks died at sea, but Elder Pratt traveled to the Austral Islands, where he taught the gospel on the island of Tubuai. Elders Rogers and Grouard continued to Tahiti, where hundreds of people were baptized as a result of their labors.

Under the direction of Joseph Smith, the Saints were moving forward to fulfill the Lord’s command: “Go ye into all the world; and unto whatsoever place ye cannot go ye shall send, that the testimony may go from you into all the world unto every creature” (D&C 84:62).

Comments and Questions

Has anyone opened a new area where the LDS church was completely unknown?  If so, can you share insights into the benefits and/or problems associated with opening a new area?

No Bible Bashing

“Oh, ye elders of Israel, hearken to my voice; and when you are sent into the world to preach, tell those things you are sent to tell; preach and cry aloud, ‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand; repent and believe the Gospel.’ Declare the first principles, and let mysteries alone, lest ye be overthrown. … Preach those things the Lord has told you to preach about—repentance and baptism for the remission of sins.” (History of the Church, 5:344)

There are those critics who think the missionaries should talk more about the mysteries of the Gospel.  They claim the LDS are “hiding” important points of theology.  How do you reconcile this, or is it better to simply ignore this criticism?

“I spoke and explained concerning the uselessness of preaching to the world about great judgments, but rather to preach the simple Gospel.” (History of the Church, 4:11)

Some people are attracted to apocalyptic preaching.  Is it wise to avoid this type of conversation, even if someone is interested in it?

“The Elders [should] go forth … in all meekness, in sobriety, and preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified; not to contend with others on account of their faith, or systems of religion, but pursue a steady course. This I delivered by way of commandment; and all who observe it not, will pull down persecution upon their heads, while those who do, shall always be filled with the Holy Ghost; this I pronounced as a prophecy.” (History of the Church, 2:431)

Is this a problem on the bloggernacle?  How many of us are guilty of not following Joseph’s advice?  How should we respond when others are specifically trying to pick a religious fight?  Does avoiding contentious arguments really “allay the prejudice of the people”?

“If there are any doors open for the Elders to preach the first principles of the gospel, let them not keep silence. Rail not against the sects; neither talk against their tenets. But preach Christ and him crucified, love to God, and love to man; … thereby, if possible, we may allay the prejudice of the people. Be meek and lowly of heart, and the Lord God of our fathers shall be with you forevermore.” (“The Book of John Whitmer,” p. 80, Community of Christ Archives)

Does it bother anyone that a correlated church manual is using a CoC Archives reference?  If this quote wasn’t in the manual, would it be ok to introduce such a quote in a lesson, or would that be considered teaching uncorrelated material and be out of bounds?  (In my ward, it certainly would be considered out of bounds.)

I was reading a comment in another article here, and what Doug had said intrigued me:

This board started out as a place for middle-way thinking people to discuss problematic issues with doctrine and history. It would now appear that anyone with an opinion different then the “current LDS view” is attacked as I and many others have been. On several other discussion boards, mormon matters is considered a pro LDS blog. Gentlemen, just say the word and I’ll find another place to try and help those who don’t see the church the way you do understand that they’re not alone. I guess it’s true; there is in reality no room for a NOM in the church.

I don’t know if I have ever thought of MM as anything other than a pro-LDS blog. But I *have* always recognized that this site is of a different caliber, of course, than M* or T&S and others. So I guess, I’ll try to shake things up and offer a different perspective and hope that I don’t get chased out on a rail.The other day, out of all people, *I* had a missionary experience. I’ve written about it on my blog, but here’s the executive summary: over the course of conversation, I revealed to someone that I was raised Mormon. Over more conversation, I revealed further that I’m not a believing Mormon (and with that, I’ve probably lost half my MM readership right there, if Doug’s comment is to be believed) and so they shouldn’t expect me to have the most faith-promoting answers.

However, despite that, I still was the go-to guy for tough Mormon questions. Questions such as, “Isn’t this the church where blacks can’t go to heaven?” (these guys have learned well from the Huckabee school of interrogation) or “Are women banned from celestial glory because they do not have the priesthood?”

It was at this time, of course, that I realized that I was, in ways, a representative of the church (despite my pointing out that I’m not the faithful go-to guy). And so I realized that I had to take a delicate path.

I guess that for faithful members, there are standard, correlated answers for these questions. So it’s easy enough to answer that the policy was that blacks could not get the priesthood, but now with new revelation, blacks do have the priesthood and things are resolved. It’s then easy enough to segue that into an explanation of different levels of heaven (exaltation? how’s that different from salvation? Celestial Kingdom? Priesthood ordinances?) And then jete to the restoration of the gospel and isn’t that nice and won’t you come? I bet within a week you can get the missionaries a referral if you’re good enough.

But…if you haven’t realized it…for ex-Mormons, former Mormons (who I guess form the “dark side” in many members’ minds), liberal Mormons, New Order Mormons, and anyone similar, the standard correlated answers don’t work. They make us feel uneasy or deceptive. And that’s in part how we get to our position — by distancing ourselves from the church, we detach from stinging correlated answers. So, we can relate the Joseph Smith story, but we don’t necessarily feel obligated to believe the correlated telling. Or do the same for whatever issue.

Now, I will say that there are some who will go far with this — there are those who will leave the church bitter, angry, and anti. But I would suppose that most ex- and former Mormons don’t want to appear like antis. Anti-Mormons sometimes embarrass me. I’d like to think that people can look at reasonably truthful, accurate information, and then decide based on that (there’s enough gray to allow people to go either way without bringing up inaccuracies, falsehoods, sickly sweet faith-promoting stories and sickly venomous faith-destroying ones.)

But I am still put in this strange position…where I become the liaison for the church and for the LDS doctrine. And then I realize that because I am viewed as a somewhat reputable source despite my warnings otherwise, even as an exmember, I still am a missionary of sorts.

This post sounds kinda spastic because this is the third time I’ve written about it (the second time was to get perspectives from the other Dark Side of the Mooners) …but I wanted to ask people from a faithful perspective…what would you expect from ex- and former Mormons? What would you hope that they would say in response to questions about the gospel? Would it impress you to see an ex-Mormon dispelling blatant untruths from anti-Mormons? Would that all be dashed to bits if they followed up their trouncing of inaccuracies with unflattering church history or doctrine?

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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

Did they enjoy it or not?

Missions just never seemed for me. At first I was apathetic to the concept, and then I was doubtful. Then, I became opposed to the concept. Why should I derail my life? (The answer of: “Because it’s what the Lord wants you to do” or “Because righteous people should want to be obedient” fell flat against me.) What good could a mission really do for me? Why should I try to convince people who already have religions and ways of life that they are wrong?

As someone who grew up in the church, I’ve never been able to understand converts’ perspective. I’ve never been able to understand how someone can listen to two clean-cut 19-year-olds and go from there to testimony. I’ve just never had to do it (but when I’ve seen the missionaries at work, or I’ve heard the lessons, it’s been wholly unconvincing. So much for feeling the spirit.)

Eventually, I started seeing some people go on missions. People who I knew weren’t really the most worthy people (not that I’m judging). I didn’t pay too much attention to it…I assumed they had cleaned up whatever their indiscretions were. So when these people started coming back much more mature, I was amazed. They had clearly been transformed on their missions and now they were back wiser. (I guess I’ve had the luck of never seeing a missionary faith disaster case.) I began to respect the missionary ideal…even if I was not quite sure if it was for me.

I remember…it was around Easter a few years ago…it had to be before Easter, because I remember Easter was the day of my epiphany. Anyway, some time before Easter a few years ago, my father had been my young men’s adviser, and I remember asking him about how people get testimonies. I remember arguing something to the effect that I couldn’t have a testimony being raised in such comfort. I’d need to be subjected to all of the worst things in the world and then be forcibly humbled. It was pretty deep, I thought. My father didn’t agree. He said something about how Christ suffered for us so that we didn’t necessarily have to suffer all that stuff if we’d follow by faith. Why stick your finger into an electrical socket when you can just accept by faith that it’s not a good idea? Sure, the former will give you a physical experience that you won’t soon forget…but it could destroy you first.

Still, I thought I needed some thing that would shake my foundation so hard that it forced me to need Christ.

Then came Easter. I don’t think there was anything in any particular lessons about it (so I guess this is the point where I’m supposed to say the Lord has great sense of timing for personal revelation — yeah, right), but I came to realize that all a mission was is a controlled way for people to reach the humble rock bottoms of their lives.

I apologize if this is a naive and warped view of a missionary experience.

When I read about missionary experiences, they don’t sound particularly enjoyable. Or rather, the enjoyable ones are rare. But it seems that most missionaries either don’t focus on the unenjoyable aspects, or when they do, they miss the point. However, I was looking for a fiery field to walk in, and a white (hot) field was ready to harvest.

Back then, I thought that even though I’d hate the experience and I’d hate myself for it, in the end, I’d have a thicker testimony. So, it was with that that I had that kind of LDS-ism…if you can only desire to believe, after all…

So, I have a period of time in my journal where I tell myself that I must tell the Bishop, my father, etc., to make me go on a mission no matter what. That I cannot be allowed to back out of this.

…As you can see, I haven’t gone on my mission, and even though I have a few years, I don’t see it in my future. In the end, I have to accept that even though I recognize such an experience would change me, I would hate such a change. Perhaps it’s pride or whatever, but I don’t want to come to look at my life as something I despise. Yet that’s what I feel the mission experience, and a full-out commitment to the church would bring.

I look at so many people who have ended up wrecking themselves because of some church expectation or requirement…twisting themselves in emotional or financial or spiritual knots…and for what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Temperance Movement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wish to speak to those in a similar situation to me on my mission. This could be a youth seeking a first testimony, hoping to realize Moroni’s promise at their bedside. It could even be a prospective missionary hoping to do the same. It could be a life-long member seeking a renewal or reassurance of testimony.

I also want to speak to others struggling with testimony in a very different way. I believe some of us here, while believing we had a strongly rooted testimony in the restored gospel, have encountered things that may have challenged that testimony This could come in many forms: a realization of the imperfections of the prophets and apostles (past and present), or, on a related note, a run-in with some fragment of church history that just does not seem to sit well with you, or any number of other reasons that lead us to a point of confusion or frustration and a difficulty to believe as fervently as you once had.

Finally I wish to speak to the members of the church as a whole—assuming that all of us are continually seeking to define, defend, and renew our testimonies.

First, to those seeking a first testimony or renewal/confirmation of testimony: I wish to share a couple anecdotal stories that illustrate the dangerous expectation that we as individuals and as a church sometime have: the expectation to obtain our “witness” by some miraculous means. The first given by Orson Scott Card, a well-known LDS columnist.

Years ago, two young women we knew went on a temple trip. A temple official addressed the whole group, saying, “At this temple, we are keeping records of the spiritual experiences people have while doing temple work. When you’re through, we’ll give you paper so you can write down yours.”

The two girls had opposite responses. Girl A — let’s call her Agnes — felt a thrill of excitement. As she went down into the water and performed baptisms for the dead, she kept watching her own emotions — and in the process she found herself having stronger and stronger feelings, until she was convinced that she had had a great spiritual experience. So Agnes wrote it down with all the fervency of youth.

Girl B — Betsy — felt a great dread. What if she didn’t feel anything? What if she was the only one who had nothing to write about? And, indeed, while she felt good about taking part in the sacred ordinances, she had no great rush of feeling, no sign from God, no special connection with the other side.

Afterward, when everyone else (or so it seemed to her) was furiously writing, Betsy was miserably disappointed in herself for not measuring up.

Both of these girls were cheated out of the real temple experience by the false expectation — the demand, really — that they have and share a “spiritual experience.”

My second story comes from Elder Godoy as he recounts in General Conference an experience he had when visiting a ward in Brazil.

A few years ago, when I was serving as an Area Seventy in Brazil, my family and I were on vacation in the beautiful city of Florianópolis. On Sunday, as usual, we went to the closest church that we could find. My wife and I and our oldest daughter attended a Sunday School class where they were discussing our personal testimony of the gospel.

At some point in the lesson, the teacher asked the class members if they would share a powerful spiritual experience they had while developing their testimony of the Church. While some brothers and sisters were sharing their stories, I mentally reviewed my own experiences as a convert for something I could share with them, but I could not think of anything very remarkable in my process of gaining a testimony.

While I was thinking and listening to the others’ experiences, I realized that the teacher expected me to participate. She was listening to the other members, and she let me know that she was waiting for my great experience to be shared. After all, I was an Area Seventy, and I should have something impressive to share. Feeling that the time was passing and she was waiting for me, I tried harder to find something that would fit in this category of a powerful event, but I was not able to think of anything, to the disappointment of the teacher. For all I wanted to help, I could not meet her expectation.

Both of these stories focus on the point I wish to make here. Often times we as a church, and as a culture, focus on the importance of obtaining a witness to the truthfulness of the church. We often do so using such language as “a burning of the bosom” or other well-known Mormon phrases. We hear about people that experience a proverbial Pentecost at their bedside. We do this often times, to the exclusion of the stories that tend to be more common in the church: obtaining a witness through everyday experiences that nevertheless tell us in our mind and in our hearts that the gospel is true, godly, and good. To those struggling in faith because you have not had a “profound spiritual experience” rest assured that your testimony is no less valid than someone who has. You belong to a sometimes silent majority in the church to which General Authorities belong.

Elder Godoy of the Seventy concluded his story (the part that follows the foregoing excerpt) by saying that his testimony was not based on one irrefutable event either, but the sum total of many experiences that led him to believe that the seed was “GOOD.”

This word, “Good,” leads me to my next topic and audience: those who have been shaken in their testimony.

Some of you, like me, me have encountered things that have made you scratch your head and wonder a bit from time to time about the “truthfulness” of the gospel or the restored gospel.

Here I need to pause and question just what exactly we mean when we say “truth, or truthfulness.” We are often taught that the church is true or false, black or white, right or wrong, miraculous or a fraud. While I hold these statements in large part to be true, I also believe that this view of the gospel can be destructive for some. Viewing the gospel, the church, and its leaders in such a binary fashion can be disastrous. It leads many, including myself for a time, to believe that if the history of the gospel, the church, and its leaders is not blemish-free, then the logical conclusion is that it is altogether false. As a matter of fact, I know people who have left the church based on this premise.

I wish now to return to the word, “Good.” If you find yourself questioning the truth of the gospel because the church and its leaders do not have a perfect history, I encourage you to find strength and encouragement from this fact, not discouragement and a lack of faith. I believe that the reason why so many of us are so bothered by blemishes, is because we believe in the church so strongly, and we care so much about it… not that we care to little and wish to discard it. We would do well to remember a few things.

I can sum them up in an old adage: While the Catholics say the Pope is infallible, none of them believe it. And while the Mormons say the Prophet IS fallible, no one believes it. Do not be discouraged that we are lead and have been lead by imperfect men. While they are prophets and apostles, and I do not mean to minimize that fact, they are men—just as we are men. We are all walking through the lone and dreary world whether we want to believe it or not–you and me, and the prophets and apostles. We, just as the apostles and prophets, have been separated from our God and must seek daily to discern between truth and error, to hear His voice and discern between it, our own wills and desires, and those of the world. It was Paul, the great apostle himself, who said when addressing the Corinthians that he “saw through a glass darkly.” I think it presumptuous to assume anything different concerning our modern day apostles.

To conclude my thoughts on the word “GOOD,” that Alma and Elder Godoy use, I mean to say that GOOD means neither perfect nor infallible. If calling the church, an institution, by the adjective true, seems odd to you, especially because we recognize that we as individuals and as a church are a work in progress, imperfect and fallible, then you are not alone. What an odd usage of the word! To mean it’s like calling a ham sandwich true. It just doesn’t mean anything… unless of course we understand that when we say true, we mean Good, or “of God,” etc. And I do think that is what we mean when we say “the church is true.” So, to those of you struggling due to encountering history that challenges your testimony of the church or of its leaders, remember that above all else, you know that the church is GOOD, and that it as well as all of us are a work in progress.

Finally, I wish to address all of you as individuals that are just like me: seeking to define, defend, and renew my testimony. I believe all of you, whether you have experienced any of the aforementioned feelings or not, will one day experience some sort of discomfort as you explore the foundations of your former, current, and future faith. But discomfort is a good thing, it means we are thinking, feeling, evaluating, readjusting, redefining, in sum developing our understanding of God and Man. And so far as I have understood it correctly, that is the very meaning of life.

Wendy Ulrich, a PhD, focusing on religious and specifically Mormon psychology, describes our relationship with God in much the same terms as she would any long-term relationship, even a marriage.

The first of these stages is a honeymoon stage of blinding idealism, in which we delight in our new partner and are sure that the problems faced by other couples, other parents, other believers will not bother us. We are in love, full of hope, enthusiastic about our new relationship. We relish being loved and cherished, but even more we relish being someone who is easily loving and good. We are sure we have found a wonderful spouse, child, church, relationship with God, and we are also sure that this will last. We finally know how to be in a relationship, or how to get answers to prayers, or how to be part of a community. We are happy, sure that little problems that come up will be readily resolved. This stage lasts weeks and sometimes years, but it intermittently gives way to the second stage of committed relationships, the power struggle.

As the power struggle gradually takes over more and more of the relationship we begin to wrestle for control. We may try any of a number of old or new tactics to try to coerce, cajole, reason, manipulate, blackmail, convince, bribe, punish, or flatter our partner in the relationship into changing to give us what we want, whether what we want is a spouse who does the laundry or a God who explains Himself to our satisfaction. While some of these tactics may work with spouses or children or parents, they do not work with God. He invites us to change instead, and this is often very painful. We want the world back the way it was when we were innocent and full of hope and before we had discovered the snakes in the grass, but He evicts us from the garden and tells us to keep walking. Much of our behavior is about trying to get safe, and much of His is about trying to help us see that our safety lies in our submission to and trust in Him despite pain and struggle, not in our freedom from physical or emotional discomfort. We keep thinking that there are answers and solutions to all difficulties if we can just get someone else to see our point of view and give us what we know we need. And that someone else keeps holding out on us, keeping us guessing as to what to try next. We are sure that if we could just change them we could get things back to the honeymoon, not realizing that this is not only impossible, but unhelpful.

The third stage of committed relationships, which usually comes after years of vacillating between lingering idealism and the increasing futility of the power struggle, is withdrawal. At this stage we essentially give up, although we may not leave. We resign ourselves to not really getting what we want, not really changing the other party, and not really being happy. We are tired of fighting, but we can’t recoup our lost idealism. We go through the motions of relationship but we are frustrated and we feel more or less betrayed and misunderstood. This period of withdrawal allows us to regain some independence, pursue other sources of satisfaction, and develop other talents and interests. If we are lucky we begin to work on ourselves–whom we can change–instead of working on our partner whom we cannot change. With the Church or with God, this means we begin to face that there are some questions we will not get answered, some differences that will not be worked out, some losses that will not be prevented. This is a risky stage, a stage when some people decide there is nothing to hold onto because they are no longer in love (stage 1) and no longer have hope for change (stage 2). But as we continue to work on ourselves, see reality more clearly, and resolve our own issues we have a chance of moving toward stage 4.

The fourth and final stage of committed relationships is about renewal. Not exactly a renewal of the honeymoon, but a more mature, realistic, and truly loving renewal. We come to accept our spouse or our parents or the Church, and we come to accept ourselves. We allow God to run the universe, and we become more content to let go of things we cannot change. A deeper, more mature love begins to emerge, with fewer power struggles and less disengagement. We do not need to see all the answers, and we do not need perfection by our standards in order to not be embarrassed or ashamed of our Church, our partner, or our God. We reinvest in the relationship, not because we have decided to risk yet one more time that we will not get hurt only to have the rug pulled out yet one more time from under us, but because we have learned that hurt can be survived, that this is a risk worth taking, and that it does not mean we cannot be happy or that we are irrational suckers or that we are doomed to failure because we take another chance on trust or because we fail or are failed again. We see ourselves and our partner more realistically, and we do not run from either vision. We recognize that we can be hurt by being betrayed or we can be hurt by not trusting, but we don’t get the no-hurt choice because there isn’t one, at least not until we simply choose not to read betrayal into every ecclesiastical failure, or abandonment into every unanswered prayer.

I encourage all of you, to continue developing your relationship with God. To not avoid those moments of disillusionment and frustration that come with a growth in knowledge, but to confront them, embrace them, and learn from them. Learn more about yourself, and learn more about God. Indeed, realize that your testimony is a process.

To those struggling with doctrines or moments in church history, again anchor yourself in what you know to be good, and I do believe that you know the church is good, or else you would not be here today. Be comforted that God does not expect perfection of anyone, not you, nor the leaders of the church, but he does expect that we all move in the right direction and follow another admonition of Paul, to “cleave to that which is good.”

To those struggling to find a first testimony or those seeking to renew it through prayer, continue to pray. While God may not visit you with angels in the night, or even a physical feeling or burning, he will hear you and reveal truth to you in the way that he knows will benefit you most. For some that may be an angel, or a feeling, but certainly not for all.

My testimony, like yours, is very much so a work in progress. I even hesitate today to say that “I know” certain things. But I am comfortable in saying that my faith is that God is there, that Jesus Christ lived and died for us, and that God has revealed much for our good through ancient and modern day prophets, and that he will reveal much to us individually if we seek him out and say as Samuel did, “Speak Lord, for thy servant heareth.”… “Hear” of course being used figuratively.

Last Sunday in church I spoke with four missionaries who told me of a strange ritual that used to be practiced in their mission.  One missionary assured me that he had personally been involved in this questionable practice.  When I was a missionary we really didn’t have any missionaries that would do something so wasteful.  But somewhere in the 1980s there developed a strange folk practice among missionaries throughout the world where they ignited parts of their clothing in a huge bonfire.  Some people would consider it a harmless practice as they would burn off parts of their clothing as a ritual sign of passage.  I am not certain myself if it is a good or bad thing since this week I attended a conference about green issues.  Only a wealthy society could consider the incineration of a tie, a shirt, a pair of pants, and a suit jacket as an item of inconsequence.

A couple of weeks prior was a missionary poster asking for ties to be sent to Peru for the poor Peruvian elders.  I wonder how many of them engage in this practice of burning off apparel as a sign of the passage of time.

There was a ward mission leader seated in the foyer when I talked with the missionaries.  I asked him if he had ever heard of missionaries burning their clothing before.  He said sure, ten years when he served a mission he burned a tie at six months, a shirt at a year, a pair of pants at eighteen months, and his suit the day before he came home.

I thought this practice was just unique to elders then I discovered that a few sisters also engage in this practice right before they came home. I actually found a photograph of one sister burning her dress.  It is amazing how they incinerate them.

I was told that they torch them with lighter fluid or gasoline.  It is a wonder to me that they haven’t burned down their missionary apartments.  I know that lots of boys are pyromaniacs.  Even I love a good fire on occasion.  I wonder why they didn’t toast marshmallows on the pyre when they sent up their burnt offerings.

After attending my seminar this week I wonder if it is environmentally friendly for missionaries to be burning their clothes.  I think if half of the 50,000 missionaries engaged in this practice there could be lots of emissions.  Not to mention how expensive a suit is.  I remember how  I spent over a thousand dollars to outfit my children for their missions.  I wonder how many parents know that the fifty dollar tie, thirty dollar shirt, one hundred dollar pair of pants and two hundred dollar Mr. Mac coat is going up in a ball of flames.

I told the one brother that I couldn’t afford to burn my suit pants because I only owned three pair of pants on my mission.  A matching pair for my two suits and a pair of blue jeans for P-Day.  If I burned either pair I wouldn’t have had anything to wear on Sunday.  In fact I was so poor after my mission I wore those ratty suits and ties for another year or two.

If I had been richer maybe I would have changed them from a solid to a gaseous state too.   I am perplexed how this custom ever started.  I guess most of them figure the burning of clothes is a way to symbolically shed time towards the day when they will go home.  After my mission I wish I had been able to stay longer or do it over again.

I do have to admit if their clothes were as ragged as mine, they probably had soggy ties or suits from the hours I spent in rain, snow and sleet.  The Mormon missionaries are like the postal service: nothing keeps them from knocking on doors.  They climb ravines, ford streams, fall on the ground, wrestle their companions.  I wonder how they even keep their suits clean for as long as they do.

If every parent could see what abuse the missionary clothing goes through, they would never spend thousands of dollars outfitting their son or daughter, as I did.  Instead, they would immediately head for the nearest thrift store to purchase a “burning suit.”

A few caveats…

A) No, C.S. Lewis fans…he did not make the list and for good reasons–primarily because his spot is being reserved a future, top-10 list that Arthur and I will co-arthur, I mean, author (*drum riff for comedic effect*).

B) I must give Howard Hughes a hat-tip…while he doesn’t make the official list (his contribution wasn’t wide-reaching enough to really lodge himself in the Mormon mind beyond esoterica), he fits well within the tradition of businessmen appreciating Mormons for their discipline and hard work. This also intersects some with the fourth

The list

4. The friendly gangster

This is more of a stock character than it is a particular individual. You’ve all heard the common returned missionary discourse from missionaries who have served in the ghetto (or in Russia). They all have a story or two about the gangster who promised them protection, about the guy with diamond-encrusted hubcaps who tells them to leave the area for their own good. One instance I heard even had a mobster in a tinted-window limousine ask the sister missionaries if anyone was bothering them. They supposedly then complain about a particularly lewd passerby who bothers them every morning. The limo drives off…they never see the man again.

So to the pious mafia and the clergy-fearing gangster, we tip our fedora hats to you.

3. Harold Bloom

A proverbial elephant in the room when it comes to literary studies (his bibliography of original monographs/novels/anthologies number thirty in total) –so he’s the kind of fellow that all the revisionists throw their critiques at. Harold Bloom has written extensively on American religious life, devoting a chapter to the Mormons. While he has little taste for much of the 20^th century Church, he called the King Follett the greatest sermon in American religious history. From Bloom we saw the fullest articulation of the “religious genius” thesis—that whatever Joseph’s oddities, he was brilliant at “religion-making.” Harold Bloom has given a prominent voice of sympathy within the unfriendly waters of literary studies, and in doing, so has given Mormonism a certain sense of literary credibility.

2. Jimmy “Ah Shucks” Stewart

The actor who needs no introduction made himself beloved amongst the Mormons for his role in the Church-produced film, Mr. Krueger’s Christmas, as an old man who has a dream of the nativity and of directing the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Stewart sealed his status as honorary Mormon when he donated all of his papers and materials to the Special Collections at Brigham Young University. With these contributions added to his previous image as the “aw-shucks” actor of It’s a Wonderful Life, Jimmy Stewart provided Mormons the embodiment of debonair innocence that seems to characterize the ideal of Mormon masculinity. His Gentile status legitimized this image as one Mormons could believe would thrive in modern society.

And you know that most Mormon women probably would have swallowed Kolob if Stewart promised to lasso it for them…

And the winner is…

1. Thomas Kane

While sufficiently obscure to lay members of the Church, his noted title, “Friend of the Mormons,” demands that he receive the revered spot (and besides, most of our academics either formally or informally–obscurity is what we do). Thomas Kane, an attorney in Philadelphia, abolitionist, and military officer in the Civil War, first contacted Mormons while they were visting a Philadelphia conference in 1846. Kane provided essential legal counsel and lobbying efforts to the Latter-day Saints during the following decade when the federal government was rabidly hostile to them. He delivered lectures on the Mormons behalf and defended the Mormons to the hostile Eastern press. When Utah was made into a U.S. territory with the compromise of 1850, then-president Fillmore offered Kane the position of territorial governor. He suggested that Young would be a more fitting choice. When James Buchanan sent his troops with the Utah war, Kane offered to mediate. Young noted that he wanted Kane’s name to “live for all eternity.” He had “done a great work,” and would “do a greater work still.” Kane legitimized the Latter-day Saints at a time when most politicians and the public held the Mormons in low-regard indeed.

Let’s assume this reluctance has nothing to do with how you feel about “the message” itself.  You love the gospel.  You have a testimony.  Attending church makes you happy and helps you be a better person.  And you feel some compulsion to share that with others.  It’s still possible to not want to turn your friends or family members over to the missionaries.  It’s possible to love the message but to feel insecure about the messenger.

If the gospel is the message, then the missionaries are often the envelope in which that message is delivered.  When I sort through the mail, this is the stuff that goes straight in the trash:

• anything addressed to “resident” or our house’s previous owners; anything addressed to someone who doesn’t really exist or never lived there
• stuff stamped with ”urgent” or “open immediately” but is clearly from a business with whom I have no existing relationship; stuff with loud colors or big “zowie” outlines around words like “new”–clearly junk mail
• those pretend-familiar letters that look handwritten to you but you don’t know the handwriting or it’s really a font designed to look like handwriting
• anything that looks like it has been mangled by an automated sorted system

Who has not received a letter like this and thrown it directly in the trash?  That’s why we call it junk mail:  it’s impersonal (or worse, fakes being personal), it treats you like a number and not a person, it is all about its own aims (e.g. marketing numbers) and not about your actual needs, it approaches you as a commodity to be manipulated and coerced toward its aims.  Those are the same qualities that describe ineffective missionaries. 

Don’t get me wrong.  There are many effective missionaries who are humble and love the people they serve, who treat each person as an individual, and who truly prize the message they are sharing.  So why are some missionaries not like this?

• Pride.  Just like any group of people, some missionaries have an ego.  They want to be viewed as successful, and if success means numbers, some of them will do what it takes to get those numbers, even if it’s not what they should do.
• Pressure.  That’s really just pride again, but stated as if the person(s) or system applying the pressure is the responsible party.  Missionaries need to reduce their susceptibility to pressure to do things that are wrong (or to do them the wrong way) in order to be successful.    And mission presidents are as susceptible to pride as the missionaries they serve and lead.  Often, MPs are successful businessmen who are used to measurable results.  They want a scorecard.  They want to know they are successful and to make goals for success.  When they apply these business skills to the mission, though, they run the risk of cutthroat tactics to achieve “success.”
• They had a bad day.  OK, cutting missionaries some slack here, everyone has good days and bad days.  Sometimes they are going to be less effective.  That’s just being human.  Zebedee Coltrin left his mission due to a splitting headache, and Parley P. Pratt opened his preaching to the Quakers by decrying their beloved celibacy.  Even Paul got run out of Ephesus on a rail.  We’ve all made mistakes.

So, what can we as lay members do to ensure that the envelope doesn’t get in the way of the valuable message?

• Befriend, don’t proselyte.  Don’t be talked into doing something you are uncomfortable with.  Personally, I think missionary work (for members especially) should be about recognizing that this is a cool person you would like to hang out with at church, someone you want to join your church family.
• Explain the process.  If you think a missionary is going to give the full-court press or that the missionary is someone they may not like, let your friend know up front what to expect.
• Keep “Zeniff” missionaries in check.  Talk to the missionary to know what kind of person you are dealing with.  Tell them what your friend needs and express any concerns you have.
• Deliver our own messages.  If you are worried about the missionary, be there in person to make sure the message gets through correctly, or just do your own missionary work until a missionary you trust is in place.

What do you think of these guidelines for us as members?  Would this improve the effectiveness of missionary work?  What else would you suggest?  Discuss.

Orson F. Whitney explained it like this:

Perhaps the Lord needs such men on the outside of his Church, to help it along. They are among its auxiliaries, and can do more good for the cause where the Lord has placed them, than anywhere else… Hence, some are drawn into the fold and receive a testimony of Truth, while others remain unconverted…the beauties and glories of the gospel being veiled temporarily from their view, for wise purpose. The Lord will open their eyes in his own due time…God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter Day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous for any one people…We have no quarrel with the Gentiles. They are our partners in a certain sense.

One might compare these perceptions to a person’s reaction to Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity concerning the speed of light and time perception. Basically, if one travels at the speed of light, then the perception of time slows down until time essentially ceases to exist to those outside one’s frame of reference. 

We must understand that we are asking investigators to do something similar, to stop time as it were.  The church’s claims may be possible, but they seem utterly fantastic, even absurd to the uninitiated.  So when they reject it, is it possible, as President Whitney said, that some are kept from the truth not only because they know not where to find it but also because the Lord would rather have them elsewhere for the time being?

If the Pope joined the Church (as we dreamed of during our missions), there would not likely be massive LDS baptisms, but charges of scandal, of madness, of intrigue.   If Mother Theresa had become a member, could she have retained her credibility as an international humanitarian?  Could it not be the Pope, Mother Theresa and others are/were doing their parts in the vast work of temporal and spiritual salvation?  While they might be introducing incorrect doctrines, isn’t it possible that the Lord plans on getting that straightened out later?  Maybe in the meantime, he needed Mother Theresa’s humanitarianism, Martin Luther’s defiance, and Isaac Newton’s mind right where they were.

In many ways our church is different from other churches because we attend Sunday services based on geography.  But, does that make it harder for members who may be the only minority members in their wards?

In the article it says that many blacks said they wanted a racial timeout on Sunday.   “They would say, ’I need a place of refuge,…I need to come to a place on Sunday morning where I don’t experience racism.”
This could probably be said of other races as well.

Interracial church advocates  state “churches should be interracial whenever possible because their success could ultimately reduce racial friction in America.”

Advocates also say “the church was never meant to be segregated.  They point to the New Testament description of the first Christian church as an ethnic stew – it deliberately broke social divisions by uniting groups that were traditionally hostile to one another.”

Curtiss Paul DeYoung, co-author of “United by Faith” says “the first-century Christian church grew so rapidly precisely because it was so inclusive.  He says the church inspired wonder because its leaders were able to form a community that cut across the rigid class and ethnic divisions that characterized the ancient Roman world.”

“People said that if Jews, Greeks, Africans, slaves, men and women – the huge divides of that time period – could come together successfully, there must be something to this religion”.

Thomas Brelsford, co-author of “We are the Church Together” said “Only when ethnic groups no longer feel compelled to abandon their entire culture on Sunday morning can a church claim to be interracial……..An interracial church isn’t one in which all the black members act, dress and worship like the church’s majority white members to make them feel comfortable…….Interracial churches resist ‘taking one dominant identity and forcing everyone to fit into it.’”

As I read this article here are some of the questions that came to mind…

Are we doing enough to make minorities feel welcome in our congregations?  What can we do better?

How do racial issues affect missionary work?

Have we done enough to address the issues of things like Blacks and the Priesthood?  (for more on this, read what  Marvin Perkins has to say about it.)

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–>