In this inaugural episode of Matters of the Heart, Kelly Quinn shares her essay, “The Elder Daughter,” which she wrote after listening to Mormon Matters Episode 51 (“The Dynamics of Guilt and Shame”) that contained a different angle on the Parable of the Prodigal Son than is typically given voice to in LDS discourse. As many biblical scholars suggest, this parable might better be referred to as the Parable of the Two Lost Sons. In this essay, Quinn discusses her own embodiment of many of the same qualities of that parable’s elder brother and the role that the Atonement has played in helping her journey toward greater peace and wholeness.

We invite your comments below!

What are the scriptural roots of the Christian expectation of Christ’s second coming? How do these match up with apocalyptic visions from other traditions? What unique ideas do Mormons bring to end-times thinking? Is the violent vision of the world’s end set in stone, or are there chances for human beings to change the outcome? If someone feels like she or he cannot believe scripture and teachings about the Second Coming literally, are there still positive framings about preparing for the end of the world or the idea of Christ coming that they might be able to adopt?

In this episode, Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Jared Anderson, Charles Randall Paul, and Kenton Karrasch dive deep into all of these issues and many others! It’s a big subject and a long-ish episode, but the recording still only scratches the surface. We hope you will listen and then contribute to a vibrant additional discussion in the comments section below!

——-

Additional Reading:

“Watching,” by V. Stanley Benfell III. (This is the essay Dan refers to in the podcast relating to watching for Christ in others.)

We hope that after listening you’ll contribute to a great discussion in the comments section below!

In this podcast, host Dan Wotherspoon and panelists Joanna Brooks, Tresa Edmunds, and Jared Anderson explore this issue of a church seemingly in danger of losing a generation of young people. Why are today’s youth failing to feel connected to the church in the way members of earlier generations were? What has shifted in society, and the experiences and mindsets of today’s “Millennial” generation? Can this exit trend be slowed or stopped—and if so, how? The panel even discusses “s-s-sex” a little bit at the end (inside joke for regular Mormon Matters listeners). This podcast contains no final “answers,” but it sure is a lively discussion! After listening, we hope you’ll join in the conversation below!

1. The LDS Church’s recent reaffirmation of the King James Version as is its official Bible translation and
2. The changes it has made to chapter headings in the online version of the Book of Mormon (changes that will be carried forward in future printings) that de-emphasize the idea of darker skin as a curse from God.

What is the significance of this renewed commitment to the KJV instead of switching to newer, more scholarly Bible versions based on older manuscripts, translated into more modern English, and increasingly the Bibles of choice for other Christians? What are the possible positive and negative impacts of the Church’s continued use of this translation–on missionary efforts, scriptural literacy among the rising generation, and so forth? What do the new Book of Mormon chapter headings say about the continued fading of Mormonism’s history of equating skin color with God’s blessing or cursing? What steps might be next? What steps should be next?

Joining host Dan Wotherspoon today are Joanna Brooks, Tom Grover, and Ashley Sanders.

I agree with you that the church addresses this problem largely among the priesthood members. And, to their credit, it is a problem that affects more men than women. However, I also agree with you that it is not addressed among the sisters of our church. Here are some reasons that I believe might contribute to this:

• It’s impossible for the Church to address every problem that arises for its members. I believe that they do their best to follow major trends and try to address these as they come up. There are so many different problems that surround the area of sexuality, I’m sure it’s difficult to address.
• A major trend that has been a very real issue for the women of the Church of late is the rising frequency of clinical depression. I have noticed that the talks directed towards the sisters focus more on self-acceptance, not running faster than we have strength, self-esteem, etc. I’m sure that although the leaders recognize that there are inappropriate behaviors that women are engaging in, they would rather not add one more thing to the “guilt tank” LDS women are already dealing with.
• I agree with you that in our culture in general (not just LDS) we tend to think of men as being more sexual than women. This is actually not the case at all. Our sexual templates (what turns us on) and drives may differ, but all human beings are sexual. I also agree that because of these perceptions, we tend to be surprised or excessively judgemental when we hear that a woman could be a sex addict or enjoys looking at pornography. Even women who have a higher libido than their husbands can be left feeling “weird” or inadequate. This is an area we need to become more comfortable addressing.

It’s important to remember that pornographic use does not automatically translate into pornographic addiction. Those who struggle with sex or pornographic addiction have a high likelihood of sexual trauma in their past. Remembering this can help us as members be more empathetic and understanding when these issues come up.

It is also important to be aware that some women who look at pornography do so because they feel pressured to so by their spouses as a way to liven up their sexual lives or legitimately enjoy seeing their spouses excited by the pornography. Therefore for these people, the use of pornography has more to do with the spouse than with their own desires. My findings have been that although this can create a sense of false intimacy at first, it is exactly that: false intimacy. And it then becomes a harder task to go back and recreate the true intimacy that couples want in their sexual relationships.

It is paramount for us as members to become educated about our sexual & cultural surroundings, relevant statistics, and negative trends so that we are better able to educate our children and react appropriately to friends and other members within our stakes and wards. We cannot always rely on the Church to do all of this for us.

MM readers:

What is your take on this question?  Should the church be addressing pornography use and women?

Do you agree with me that pornography use between couples results in false intimacy or not?

If a couple want to engage in watching pornography together should this be considered as part of their sexual repertoire and only their business – in other words, not needing a confession to a priesthood authority?

How would you respond if you knew of a woman who was a pornography and/or sex addict?  Would that surprise you?

If you are a woman, what perceptions do you have or have you felt regarding this issue?

I realize that this could be a sensitive topic with varying opinions, so please keep it civil.

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist. She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

These are excellent questions! My advice about “honesty being the best policy” regardless of the relationship in question holds firm even with our children. However, the level of honesty and detail shared should be adequate to the situation and age of the child. Here are some thoughts:

It is always fascinating to me to see how patterns of behavior tend to repeat generationally. It does not seem to matter whether the parents have tried to keep past sins or mistakes secret. An interesting case I will never forget is of a mother who came in to see me with her 15-year old pregnant teenager. With a little bit of digging we were able to establish that this had happened at the same age for four generations! None of the teens knew at the time of the prevalent family history. Unfortunately, the anxiety and worry (although well intentioned) associated with parenting can sometimes produce the opposite effect that we want. For instance, we might be so anxious and worried about premarital sex, that we unconsciously transmit messages to our children that drive them more towards this behavior than against it.

As far as HOW to share past experiences, you can start by saying “You know, when I was your age, I also struggled with staying chaste. I had all these feelings bottled up and I really liked this person I was dating. A lot of my friends were having sex and I was confused as to why it would be such a bad thing, etc., etc.” You can continue to share what challenges you faced, what situations you found yourself having a hard time in, how you overcame those issues over time, etc. You do not need to say “I had premarital sex.” This may be more than what you are willing to disclose, and you do not owe your child this level of very private and personal information. If they flat out ask, you can always respond by saying “I am not going to say yes or no to that question because it is very private. But I do want you to know that I struggled like you are struggling and, believe it or not, I know some of what you are going through right now.” Ultimately it is up to each parent to share what they are comfortable with and what feels right with each individual child.

It is important to respect your spouse’s/ex-spouse’s experiences and not disclose information about their pasts without their consent (especially when the child is underage). It is also important to communicate with your spouse what you plan to share from your own past so that you stay united as a parenting unit and they are not taken by surprise by a comment that a child makes in the future.

Having a moment of open honesty with your child, especially when it is a difficult topic, will always gain the respect of that child. I don’t know if you have noticed but adolescents and young adults seem to have a “hypocrisy radar” turned on at all times. They are highly dramatic and offended when they feel someone is being hypocritical or dishonest with them, especially since honesty and forthcomingness is usually expected of them.

This idea that being honest with our children about our past experiences will help them justify their own bad behaviors does not hold much clout. Kids will make mistakes regardless of what we tell them. It is a natural part of life. It is important as the parent who is sharing past mistakes to make sure and include the pain, regret and other consequences past sinful behavior caused. It is also important to communicate that the reason you are sharing these private things, are to educate in a way where the child can maybe avoid similar situations.

We may worry that our children will look at us as imperfect and lose respect once they know our weaknesses or past sins. However, I worry more that we set an unreachable expectation of what their lives are supposed to look like. If they believe their parents have never struggled, never sinned, never fought, etc., what hope do they have of being “good” members of the church if it means they have to achieve a perceived perfection? This can be very disheartening and feel unreachable.

Our adolescents and young adults are bright and clever people. They usually know more than what we are willing to give them credit for to begin with. You may come to find out that they were already aware of the “secret” you disclose. When we treat them in a way that elicits trust, it can go a long way in forging more open and intimate relationships in the long run. This is highly beneficial to all.

Although we hold grave and sacred responsibilities as parents, it is important to remember that our children start becoming responsible for their behavior on their own accord at a fairly young age. Therefore, we can’t fall into the guilt traps of “well, if I had just told her about my experience maybe that would have kept her from doing the same thing” as well as “I should never have told him anything: I knew he would follow suit!” The reality is that our children are going to fall. And they are going to hurt. Hopefully we can be part of the process of helping them get up and brush themselves off. Continued education on the atonement and what it provides to us on a daily basis is paramount in these types of discussions with our children.

As latter-day saints we have a unique understanding as to why we came to earth and the learning that is supposed to take place here. Therefore, I wish we could be more tolerant of the “falling process” with our children, instead of always just wanting to protect them from sin. If we want to follow Heavenly Father’s parenting example we need to remember that He lets us fall (regardless of the pain and anxiety it causes Him). The plan of complete protection and guaranteed salvation was actually Lucifer’s. Instead God educates, patiently chastises, allows for sin and provides a way out. He loves unconditionally. For we know that without pain there is no joy . I hope we as parents can follow suit.

MM readers:

What are your thoughts on this topic? Personal experiences?

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist. She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

Please support Richard’s lastest film Triptych by donating here, and by purchasing his DVD collection here.

I’m a pretty naive Mormon girl, raised in a super conservative environment. I have a boyfriend and I’m just discovering kissing, but since I know next to nothing about sex and physicality, I don’t really know if I’ve done anything wrong. For instance, I just found out what dry humping is and I’m worried I’ve done it, but I still don’t know what it is and what it means. Can you help me?

Challenges I see:

1.  I’m not sure what her age is (although I’m assuming she is at least 16, more than likely college aged).

2. Wanting to balance the following: encouraging normal sexual development, not engendering unnecessary shame, offering correct sexual education and teaching the benefits of chastity.

I’ve heard LDS opinions that range from not kissing until across the alter to people should have sex before marriage to check compatibility.

What is appropriate sexual exploration before marriage?  How do you define our infamous “petting” word?  Would you want your child to marry someone they had never kissed or felt passion for?  Felt lust for?  How do you draw these lines?  Assuming you are married, what did you learn from your own courting experiences?  Did you feel like you went too far or not far enough?  If this was your daughter writing me, what would you want me to tell her or not to tell her?

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist.  She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

• Bringing back the weekly panel podcast format, adding in live calls from listeners to the mix (like we’ve done a few times on Mormon Stories), and
• Looking to turn Mormon Matters into more of a Huffington Post-like blog for Mormon issues

If any of you are interested in helping to manage or support Mormon Matters in this way, please email me at: mormonstories@gmail.com

We remain the 2nd or 3rd most highly trafficked Mormon blog in the Internet….so if any of you are interested in being part of the broader Internet discussion, we’d love to talk.

Qualifications:

• Really, really good writing skills or conversational ability (for the podcast)
• A constructive approach towards the LDS church and Mormonism

Thanks!

I posted this at my blog, but wanted to see reactions here at MM.  Over the past few weeks, I have driven by a billboard titled “Remember 9/11″ with an image of the collapsed World Trade Center.  In smaller print on the right, it said “Stand up and be heard.  No mosque at ground zero.”  You can see the sign on a video at this website.

A few weeks ago on KSL, Carole Mikita interviewed a Muslim leader here in Utah.  She asked him what he thought of this idea to build a mosque near Ground Zero.  He said he thought it was a terrible idea.  He said they can build a mosque in many places, and thought it was quite insensitive for these Muslims to incite a controversy there.

As a Mormon, we have had plenty of problems with protests about churches or temples being built.  The Boston Temple was prohibited from building a steeple for quite some time because the steeple was considered too tall.  (It was eventually constructed, but the church was forced to reduce the size of the steeple.)  Many groups have protested the buildings of new temples for a variety of reasons.  My sister lives in Colorado, and 2 Mormon churches sit side by side because the owner of a subdivision refused to allow any churches to be zoned in a particularly large subdivision.  (As I recall, the owner was either a tobacco or alcohol owner that wanted to make sure no Mormon churches were built in the subdivision–so he excluded all churches.  How is this legal?)

I appreciate this Muslim leader’s pragmatism.  I too wonder why Muslims in New York aren’t more sensitive to the issue.  On the other hand, I don’t understand how any Mormon can support a ban on religious construction, given that we have had so many problems with constructing churches or temples.  As a matter of principle, I can’t see how it is constitutional to support a ban on a Muslim mosque anywhere.  What are your thoughts?

Here’s the FAQ:  How are modesty and chastity related?  How can parents teach their children to be modest in dress, language and behavior?

This sounds like another question nobody asked us, but hey, let’s answer it anyway.  However, it might be a good way to see how Mormons raise their kids and what Mormons believe about chastity and modesty I suppose.  Personally, modesty is the thing that always sets my mo-dar off (especially at Disneyworld):  families with great white teeth wearing knee-length stuff with sleeves and no bare midriffs in 100-degree weather.

Answers I liked:

• Attitude vs. Clothes.  I like the idea that modesty as it relates to chastity is a state of mind, not just what you wear and how you affect others’ states of mind.  I also liked those who acknowledged that they like cute clothes.  Otherwise we sound like a bunch of stuffy Amish people who claim we love our drab rags.
  • “In my opinion, modesty isn’t only defined by the clothing worn by a person; it’s an attitude of being unassuming and humble.”
  • “if we dress sexy, we tend to act sexy and often think sexy.”  So, should married people dress immodestly to encourage healthy sex lives?
  • “Modesty is an attitude of humility and decency in dress, grooming, language, and behavior.” That quote is from a gospel reference book called “True to the Faith.” The way that you dress is a reflection of your inner self and how you view yourself.” 
• Self-esteem advice.  OK, I really could have gone the other way on this one (especially as most of these assumptions seem directed only at girls), but as a parent, I actually liked some of the advice about immodesty being one way for teens to seek attention.  It’s definitely not the only one, but especially in a conservative environment, I think parents should notice signs that their children need attention.
  • “a young teen who needs more attention than that may resort to unnatural hair colors or argumentative attitudes or picking on a younger child or spray-painting graffiti.”  Also nice that it’s a boy example and one that’s not just about dress!
  • “I do remember being angry at my parents when they addressed only the symptoms of my teenaged cries for attention instead of fixing the gaping hole in my heart.”  I love this.
  • “I like feeling attractive while modest.”  I think it’s important that modesty should not mean you never feel sexy or attractive.
  • “I’ll be honest this one is a struggle for me. I love cute clothes, and how they can flatter your figure and having all eyes on you let’s face it–it’s great!”  Keepin’ it real at least.
  • “Dressing modestly shows confidence.”

I felt mixed about this type of answer:

• Parents’ Examples.  This just seems like foolhardy advice.  Are teens modest because they want to dress like their parents?  I thought the point of being a teenager was to rebel against your un-hip parents.  I would wager that if parents were immodest, more teens would dress modestly because they would be so grossed out.
  • “Parents teach best by example, but should also be active in their children’s lives to give them good counsel on how to live, but not be overbearing.”  I actually think this person got it right.
  • “Rules seem too much like limitations without purpose, an order from someone in authority which make us bristle and resist. What to wear, for example, is largely molded by peers and media. Parental rules which go against media models are questioned by our children.”  Nicely put.
  • “Parents have to be an example to their children, teaching them from a very young age how to dress and encouraging them to stay modest even though the world is now.”  Is now what?
  • “Because I respect my parents, an easy way for me to judge what choices to make was to not do anything that I would be embarrassed to tell my parents about.”  Aw!  I want one of these.

Things I didn’t love:

• Girls Only!  Especially when it’s a man saying it, this just strikes me wrong, like women are being held responsible for male sexual response or like a defense for blaming the victim is being set up.  Girls aren’t to blame when guys have no self-control.
  • “Rule number one for clothes: if it’s not on sale – don’t advertise it!”  Ouch.  So, immodesty = prostitution?  Good to know.
  • “To girls, young women, women, wives, & mothers:  Firstly, men are attracted to you no matter what. If you feel that you are not noticed…you are.  Isn’t that liberating?”  Not so much liberating as creeping me out.  But at least a woman wrote it.
  • “I was talking to a good friend on Sunday. He is single, 26, a really good man, but very discouraged. “Is it too much to ask a woman to dress modestly? Does she not think enough of herself? The tightness of clothing worn by some women is very disturbing. Why wear anything at all if it’s going to be that tight?”"  This guy is creeping me out.
  • “Elder Oaks was initially talking to the men of our church about the evils of pornography but then he added this warning to the women, “And women, please understand that if you dress immodestly, you are magnifying this problem by becoming pornography to some of the men who see you.”"  Ick.
  • “I want to feel gorgeous but I try to think of how it makes me feel when another woman is dressed showing waaaaaay too much in front of my husband. What is she trying to say to me and especially to him???”  Maybe you should scratch her eyes out.
• Immodesty is Sloppiness?  I’m a little floored by this notion.  Certainly, I’ve seen some bare midriffs that had no right to be so, or tank tops with bra straps showing, but to me, it’s equally sloppy to go out in public in sweatpants.  Yet, it’s not immodest.  On the contrary, if you have a cheese doodle stuck to your shirt, you are more likely to turn off sexual attention, not attract it.  You may attract flies, though.
  • “People who are not modest, who don’t care how they dress, or how they talk, or how they treat each other, don’t live up to their best. And worse still, they tend to drag other people down with them.”  I’ve seen loads of frumpy modest people and loads of stylish immodest people.
  • “When dressed lazily, we act lazily. When dressed formally, we act formally; and likewise, when we are dressed immodestly, we are inclined to act immodestly.”  Perhaps she is not equating immodesty with laziness, but it sure sounded like that.
  • “I don’t ever want to be “walking pornography.”"  Well, who does?
• Little Kids.  I am not a fan of sexualizing our very young (prepubescent) children with restrictions on sundresses or making shorts be knee-length or the notion that everyone needs to be dressed as if they are already wearing garments when they are not yet, so they can “be ready.”  Their lives will be over soon enough.
  • “I have three young girls, and have made it a point to teach them from a young age what modesty looks like and feels like.”
  • “If you start with they are infants then as they grow and mature acting and dressing modestly is a habit.”
  • “It is also increasingly difficult to find modest clothing in stores, even for a four year old!”
  • “I think modest should be taught at an early age. Even with little girls at a young age should dress modestly so they will be use to it.”
• Live in Isolation.  [Shaking head].
  • “Associate yourself with same faith friends and those who will HELP you live your standards of living, dress, use appropriate language.”  So, every member a missionary, except my kids because I don’t want them associating with the rabble?
  • “Surround the family with other families who share the same beliefs and the children will follow what they see being emulated around them.”  Only families with the same beliefs are modest?  No Mormon kids are immodest or ever break the law of chastity?  Hmmm.  See how that works out for ya.
• Humor Alert!  Some of the things people said just sounded funny.
  • “When we dress to show off the private parts of our body we are sending the wrong message and we attract the wrong people and the wrong situations.”  Tee hee!  She said ‘private parts.’  I’ve seen some immodesty in my day, but I’m still pretty sure private parts were not hanging out.
  • “When we dress immodestly in pervokes bad thoughts in others around us.”  Pervokes?  Is that a cross between “provokes” and “perverts”?

What I might say:

• Being committed to chastity is something that will affect your attitude and demeanor.  For example, you probably will decline to star in Basic Instinct.
• It’s possible to be sexy and modest, under all this clothing.  Likewise, being sexy is a state of mind.
• Teens are especially vulnerable to immodest and unchaste attitudes that erode self-esteem, so open communication is critical.

How would you answer this question?  Do you think Mormons are too obsessed with modesty?  Do you think it’s a good or bad question?  Discuss.

• a proper English gentleman
• a modernized Biblical patriarch
• an erudite English professor at a Ivy league university
• a tame Lion (returning to the C. S. Lewis reference)?

Do you recreate God in your own idealized image?

There is a constant assumption in much of what I read that God shares the sensibilities, values and perspectives of the person writing.  That to the extent that God does not, then God is wrong or those who see God that way are wrong.

Now duality teaches us that it may well be that God is both the way we see him and the way that others see him — not that there is a superior view of God, but that God is possibly many different things at once.

But at some times, as Jacob 2:8-9 reflects, God is things or messages or approaches that do not necessarily fit what we want and think we need right now.

It was found to be totally objectionable by virtually everyone: believers and unbelievers alike….including most of the perma-bloggers on this blog.

What a disaster.

The Management

P.S.  For a first-hand account of the meeting w/ Elder Marlin Jensen, click here.

LDS Sunday School students will soon take a quick leap through 66 chapters of Isaiah in five forty-minute lessons. All too often, some uniquely Mormon interpretations are given to these chapters which merit a critical analysis. In this post I present six Mormonisms often used with the first few chapters of Isaiah which I believe hinder a deeper and more accurate understanding of these prophetic writings.  Let us know if any of these interpretations show up in your Sunday School class!

1. Isaiah 2:2,3 Popular LDS commentary on this verse identifies it as Isaiah’s vision of people from many lands coming to Salt Lake City, Utah.

Many prophecies of Isaiah are dual and can be applied to more than one time, situation or people. I am aware that latter-day prophets and apostles have related this verse to the Salt Lake temple or even to the Conference Center from which the word of the Lord is issuing forth in these days. However, if we insist too strongly on this Mormon-centric view, we can miss the primary application which this verse has to the millennial reign of the Messiah. The word “mountain” as used in the Bible is a metaphor for “nation,” “government,” or “political system.” In verses 2 and 3 Isaiah is speaking of the millennial condition when Christ shall establish the political Kingdom of God upon the earth. This will be established “in the top of the mountains,” or in other words “as the head of the nations.”

2. Isaiah 2:3 Isaiah wrote that the word of the Lord will come from Jerusalem, and the law will come from Zion, the New Jerusalem, located in Jackson County, Missouri. There will be two distinct centers of influence for God’s people.

This may be, but verse 3 should not be used as a proof-text. Here we have a synonymous chiastic parallel where

the Law = the Word of the Lord, and
Zion = Jerusalem (one and the same)

The chiastic structure of this phrase indicates that Isaiah equated Zion with Jerusalem (the one located in Israel!) If we accept this, we will be able to learn more about Zion as it relates to the ancient City of David.

3. Isaiah 2:9 In the Book of Mormon, verse 9 is clarified by adding the word “not” to the following statement: “And the mean man boweth [not] down and the great man humbleth himself [not], therefore forgive him not.”

This verse actually makes much more sense in its original context, without the extra “not” added in the Book of Mormon version. Verse 8 speaks of idols which are found throughout the land. And the mean (common) man and the great (important) man boweth down (to these idols). This version makes more sense coming as it does right after the description of people worshipping idols, the work of their own hands.

4. Isaiah 2:13-17 , see also 2 Ne 12:13-17 Some Mormons still insist that this passage is an example of the restoration in the Book of Mormon of passages that were lost in the Old Testament. As noted in footnote 16a, “The Greek (Septuagint) has ‘ships of the sea.’ The Hebrew has ‘ships of Tarshish.’ The Book of Mormon has both, showing that the brass plates had lost neither phrase.”

Pike and Seely have shown the challenges of accepting this interpretation. I love the poetry of the passage and find that the addition of the extra phrase and other interjected words spoils the beauty of the chiastic tripled bicola. Isaiah used poetic conventions frequently to emphasize his points. The Book of Mormon addition does not enhance the poetic structure of the passage, but instead inhibits it. The Greek “ships of the sea” and the Hebrew “ships of Tarshish” are probably different translations of one original phrase and it is not necessary or preferable to include both. Observe the perfection of the Masoretic text with the pattern of w- (conjunction) + al (preposition “upon”) followed by kol- (“all/every”) and then two words (here in English translation):

For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be

upon every one that is proud and lofty,
and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

and upon all the cedars of Lebanon, that are high and lifted up,
and upon all the oaks of Bashan,

and upon all the high mountains,
and upon all the hills that are lifted up,

and upon every high tower,
and upon every fenced wall,

and upon all the ships of Tarshish,
and upon all pleasant pictures (fine craft)

and the loftiness of man shall be bowed down,
and the haughtiness of men shall be made low;

and the LORD alone shall be exalted in that day.

(if all this fascinates you, there is a well-reasoned apologetic view here. But I stand by my opinion.)

5. Isaiah 3:16-26 The Daughters of Zion and their apparel show the dangers of worldliness and immodesty.

If your Sunday School teacher identifies this passage (as does the lesson manual) with modesty in dress, s/he has missed the boat! The daughter of Zion, is a poetic term for the covenant people of Israel, and the items of clothing stand for different types of authority. In the Old Testament, authority was passed down with the symbolic action of transferring clothing. Thus the significance of the passing of Elijah’s mantle to Elisha, and Jonathan’s dressing David with his own clothes in 1 Samuel 18. As the son of the reigning king, Jonathan symbolically transferred his claim to the throne to his friend by stripping himself of his clothing and weapons and bestowing them upon David. In Isaiah, the covenant people are struck down because of their pride. Each of the articles of clothing worn by the daughter of Zion represent some authority or privilege which is being misused and thus removed by the Lord.

6. Isaiah 4:1 The Mormon speculation on this verse goes as follows: With so many men killed in war, righteous single priesthood holders are in short supply. Thus, plural marriage is reinstituted, with many women stating they will support themselves in order to receive priesthood covenant protection.

My examination of the Hebrew of this verse makes me confident in translating “one man” as “a certain man.” The verse thus teaches that in the latter day seven women (symbolic number of completeness, denotes the covenant people) shall take hold of a certain man (guess who that would be?) and ask him “let us be called by thy name,” which will take away their reproach (effects of atonement). In my view this verse is Messianic and has nothing whatsoever to do with polygamy.

As Latter-day Saints, we certainly have many resources in our scriptural records and our doctrine to interpret the Book of Isaiah.  But I think we need not go overboard in trying to overpersonalize these passages.  As important as it is to apply Isaiah’s writings to ourselves, we must not lose the historical connotations and meanings within the text.  Since we have only 5 weeks to cover this important book of scripture, let us carefully choose the scripture blocks we will discuss, and maintain a focused and accurate exegesis of the material.

I am aware that historically the risk and hardships were greater, the financial rewards of coming to America were much less.  Political and religious freedom were often the only reward.  The last one hundred years or so have created a dramatic change in the financial outlook offered by immigration while at the same time the cost of travel has dropped steadily.

But what is my duty to those who come here?  To those who do not come?  Am I my brother’s keeper?  What does that mean?

The questions have several completely different parts:

• Part of the question comes down to inheritance.  Should there be any right of inheritance?  What is my right to the things that have been given to me or that I have as the result of my parents or others?  After all, everything I have as a citizen of a country is really an inheritance, something I have as a gift, not because I earned it myself.
• Part of the question is whether nation-states have the right to exist, to define themselves and their memberships.  Who has a right to their services and to entry?  Does the state have any rights?  Do people have a right to a state? Does any state have a right to exist?
• Part of the question is what happens under various solutions, various answers, various approaches.  It is the nature of the current outcome that creates the hideous problems that drive the current criticisms of the present system, it is the anticipated issues of various proposed solutions that such resistance.
• Part of the question is whether or not I have any duty to my neighbor, to my brothers and sisters?  What is my moral duty?  How should that fit my legal duty?

Some baby steps are obvious.  The military favors giving people green cards who are willing to enlist and who qualify to serve in the military.  Some “solutions” are acknowledged as so disastrous as be bluntly rejected by just about everyone (e.g. completely closed borders, no immigration, no tourists, no imports or exports).

As to completely open borders, the simulations show at least two hundred million immigrants the first year.  90% of Haiti; 85% of the doctors in the Philippines (where now we’ve had almost 10% of them retrain as nurses in order to work in the United States as RNs); etc.  There is also an expected complete collapse of any universal services such as free schools and Medicaid unless access is restrained.  On the other hand, a stable population equilibrium is estimated at six hundred to seven hundred million people (including current residents), with peak expected not to break a billion with open borders before population falls off.  Most see that as not much better than completely closed borders.

But the current situation is pretty bad, including kidnapping, brutality, death and hardship with incredible pressure on anyone (outside of H1Bs) who attempts to comply with the law.  Bottom line:  terrible hardship and abuse.  The side effects are toxic and harsh so that everyone is crying out for relief.

Obviously it seems like something should be done, one would hope, to make things better.  But what – that is the big question, what is our duty and what is common sense even if we do not acknowledge anyone as our brothers and sisters?  I don’t have a solution; I’m looking for those in the comments. But if we are our brother’s keepers (and our sister’s too) the status quo is not enough.  What is your solution, what do you suggest?

This became an issue for me early in our marriage, and we used to argue/fight over this subject. At that time, I felt very angry. Today the anger is giving way to feelings of self-pity and hopelessness. Throughout my marriage I have been plagued by the fear that I made a mistake asking my wife to marry me. I feel some regret, as though I made the wrong choice to marry this person. My wife never touches me. No hand holding, no hugs, no pat on the back – nothing. She has absolutely no interest in sex. She never initiates it, and when I do it is not uncommon for her to protest that she is tired. When she does go along with it, she just lies there and does nothing. She does not touch me, kiss me, talk to me or anything else. She literally will just lie there and do nothing, waiting for it to be over. It has all become somewhat mechanical and monotonous. She absolutely refuses to consider oral sex, saying that it is gross; and she does not want to use her hand to pleasure me, either. I do not want to get divorced because the children are young, and I feel strongly that children need a father in the home everyday. I feel stuck. I feel like my wife misled me when we were dating. I feel that people who do not want to be affectionate and sexual HAVE NO BUSINESS GETTING MARRIED. It seems like my only option is to “endure to the end,” however, the thought of spending forever with this person is somewhat depressing.

You are describing a difficult and sad situation and I can see how you would feel stuck. It is sad for me to see so many men (and women) writing to me on this similar subject. One of the responsibilities as a spouse is to be aware of and take into account the needs of the other. This goes for both men and women and includes physical, emotional, spiritual and temporal needs. To ignore, belittle or judge another’s legitimate needs is dangerous for any marriage. Showing affection is a necessary part of a healthy marriage. It is not appropriate for one to withhold affection, love and/or sex from the other. If there are psychological or traumatic issues from one’s upbringing or past that hinder spousal abilities then we should be open to getting appropriate help. Even most medical issues do not need to be the end of a physically intimate relationship – it may just need to be redefined.

I highly doubt that your wife consciously misled you through your courtship. Unfortunately when we get married we don’t have much of an idea of what lies ahead and how we will react to sex, arguments, stress, children, etc. – especially if it’s the first marriage. Things from our past and our upbringing affect us more than we usually realize. Figuring out our sexuality is very much a part of marriage, especially in cultures where it is customary to wait to have sex until after marriage (such as our Mormon culture). Even people who have been sexual before marriage, often find that their sexuality differs dramatically after entering the marital state (both in positive and negative ways). I don’t know what has led your wife to take her current position, but I’m sure the girl you dated would not have thought this is what “marital bliss” looked like either – especially since I’m sure this issue has greatly affected your relationship outside of the bedroom as well.

You are right that your children need you and I respect your desire to want to be a part of their everyday life. It shows your capacity for great love. However, your children also need a good relationship model so they can go forward and have a better statistical chance of having a healthy marriage themselves. Part of being a good mother and a good father is being a good wife and husband. It is easy to forget this important parental responsibility. I realize that you have little to no control over your wife but I would encourage you both to start marital counseling – even if it is only for the sake of the kids at first. It sounds like you are both stuck in a pattern of anger and resentment which leads to exactly what you describe: depression, hopelessness, regret, more anger, more resentment, etc… And none of these things do anything for your emotional intimacy, for your sex life, or for your level of communication.

Some questions I would want to know if I were working with you:* Was the sex ever good between the two of you, or did you face problems from the get-go? * Is there a history of sexual trauma for your wife? What about other sexual baggage? * What were the “sexual messages” you both received from your parents? Did you both have the opportunity to see affection, romance, and playfulness role modeled or not? * What did the deterioration of your relationship look like? What were the main issues that came up? Was it only sex or were there other factors involved? * Has your communication about this issue mainly come from a place of anger? Or have you been able to discuss this in a more calm atmosphere? * Do you think your wife feels the same way about your relationship? What would she add to this story? * Have you told your wife the things you have told me? * Have the two of you discussed the possibility of divorce? In other words, does your wife realize how badly this issue is affecting you? * Would you be willing to get professional help with or without her?

I have written a lot on “sexless marriage” and encourage you to go through and read some of those posts on my blog. There are no easy or magical solutions for these cases. The road to a healthy sexual and emotionally intimate relationship will take a lot of work and time. It is possible to achieve, but it will take the willing efforts of two people. I hope you and your wife can begin some difficult yet frank and respectful discussions regarding the future of your relationship.

MM Readers:

What are your thoughts about spouses who withdraw sexually from a marriage?  Is this ever appropriate?  Under what circumstances might it be appropriate?  For how long?

With sexual stigma within religious culture, I often come across many who believe sex is carnal in nature, only beneficial when used for procreation, and see husbands or wives who want sex as somehow “below” the optimal standard (not having their priorities in order).  What do you have to say about this?

Sexless marriage is defined loosely as having sex less than 10 times a year.  Do any of you have personal experiences that you would be comfortable sharing?  What was helpful in resolving issues like these if you were successful in doing so?

Natasha Helfer Parker is a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist and a member of the Church with 13 years of experience working with LDS members. Here she shares with us representative cases from her practice and insights she has gained from her work as a therapist.  She blogs at mormontherapist.blogspot.com.

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

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

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

Here’s the FAQ:  Are there restrictions based on race or color concerning who can join the Mormon Church and have the priesthood?

From the “official” response:

There are no race or color restrictions as to who can join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are also no race or color restrictions as to who can have the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

. . . “We believe in the old adage that many hands make light work. We have a lay priesthood, and every worthy man is eligible to receive this priesthood.”

Best answers:

• No.  Shortest is best.
• No, and I’m black.  It’s clearly less unsavory than a bunch of white people talking about how enlightened we are now.
  • “No. I am openly accepted, welcomed and loved by every member of the Mormon church. People are forthright and honest with their questions if their exposure to blacks have been limited and not once have I felt any prejudice only love, the love of Jesus Christ. Black men are accepted into the priesthood, and black men, women, and children serve alongside not only whites but other ethnicities. The church is extremely accepting of ALL races, ethnicities, and cultures and temples exist all over the world for all its members to partake of its blessings. Don’t believe the rumors, there are black mormons and there are mormons of different races and ethnicities. Only the adversary will promote otherwise.”
  • “Anyone of any ethnic or racial background is welcome to join the church. All worthy male members of the church can hold the priesthood.”
  • “I am proud to be an African American. But something i’m even more proud of is that i hold the Priesthood. There are no restrictions based on race or color. I’ve been a member of this Church for over 10 years and have never encountered racism within it! I serve alongside of brothers and sisters of all colors and races and hold the same priesthood of God as any other brother in the church.”
  • “There are no restrictions as to who can join the Church. We are all children of our Father in heaven and all of us are in need of his love, guidance and his gospel plan for us.”
  • “No, there are not. I hold the Priesthood, which is an incredible blessing for myself and my family.  For a time, there were restrictions, and it seems that there were some bad feelings towards the Church about it, but consider this…In my own personal studies, there was not a single Church or religion in the United States, or throughout the world in the last century who did not practice some kind of segregation or discrimination. Humans are far from perfect (Which is why we ALL need the influence of a loving God in our lives).  In the mid 1800′s, leaders of our church particularly suffered major persecution for allowing slaves to live and have membership among the Mormons and were tarred, feathered, beaten, and even driven out of their homes for it. In fact, in 1844 when Joseph Smith (The first prophet of the Latter- Day Church) ran for President of the United States, one of his major platforms was to have slavery abolished by 1850. This did not go down very well in a state that owned slaves as property. Like any other faith, people are striving to be better through living fully the principles taught by the savior, which comes line upon line, precept on precept.  With all this said, the Church that has an official declaration that is printed within Latter-Day Saint scripture announcing to the world that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a whole, do not permit any form of discrimination against color anywhere in the church. I am not aware of many faiths that have an official document like this included in pages of scripture used by all Latter-Day Saints.  There is great power in personal revelation and it can be given to all men who seek the Lord and have desires to know his will..It is amazing!!”
• No, we have all races in the church.  I think keeping this global and broad is how to avoid tokenism (see below).
  • “We have members of all races, from hundreds of nations around the world. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that God “denieth none that come to him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 27:33).”
  • “When I was a missionary in Detroit I had the opportunity to teach people of many different races and backgrounds, including Africans, Hmong, and Chaldeans.”  Chaldeans, like Abraham?
  • “No there are not…in fact while my husband was attending graduate school in Philadelphia, the majority of the people in the Mormon congregation we attended were African American. The congregation was also led by an African American…President Johnson. There were also entire congregations of Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Spanish, and Portuguese-speaking members. They were not divided because of race, but rather by language spoken so that the members could hear the Word of God in their own language.”
  • “I am proud to sit in class with African, Indian, Hispanic and Asian members in our ward.”
  • “Our members are from the vast majority of countries of the world.  They comprise of all races, colours, and peoples, from Mongolia to Mauritius, Russia and the Baltic States to Japan, from Ghana to Guatamala, from Korea to Brazil, and most places inbetween.  It might surprise some to learn there are more spanish-speaking members of the Church than english-speaking ones. Twice-yearly Conferences of the Church are transmitted to our Church Meetinghouses worldwide in more than 90 languages.”
  • “I am the branch president of a small congregation that includes white, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and Haitian members. We fellowship together in unity born of the Spirit of the Lord.  I lived in Alaska for many years. Alaska is truly a “melting pot” for Mormons. Our stake included Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Germans, and Native Americans along with white and African-American members. The same sort of harmony prevailed among us.
• No, and we don’t know why there was a ban.  I think it beats speculating anyway.
  • “No, there are not. The Priesthood (or right for men to officiate in the church) was not not available to men of African ancestry before 1978. We don’t know all the reasons why this was the case, but assuredly we rejoice in the fact that all worthy men may hold the Priesthood today.”
  • “Past restrictions appear to have been grounded in cultural, social and spiritual understanding at the time.”  If this is speculation, it’s got the benefit of being likely true.
  • “I do not know the meaning of all things, but I know that God loves His children of whatever tint and hue. I know that sometimes He sees fit to try our faith, to give us a tiny sample of the bitter cup so that we can appreciate more fully what He did in draining it to the dregs. I know that there are generational things that need to be worked out in all of us. I know that prophets are inspired and that the Lord has His reasons for everything that happens in His Church. I’ll be interested in finding out the details of this situation when I get to the other side but it’s not an issue now.”
  • “For reasons we don’t fully understand, there was a time when the priesthood was not made available to all people.”
  • “These kind of questions are very legitimate concerns. No, there is not a restriction. However, at one time this was different. I don’t have the answers but I do know that it’s too easy to get caught up in the thick of thin things and miss entirely the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Answers I liked slightly less:

• No, and priesthood is always restricted.  This is perhaps the least unpalatable explanation, but I’m not sure it makes a boatload of sense either since the church was being restored.  It comes dangerously close to implying it was a doctrine, not a policy, a distinction that I think we’ve been pretty careful to make.
  • “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines, as it was in the Old Testament when only the sons of Aaron and Levi were allowed the privilege. However, modern prophets were clear from the beginning that in the Lord’s time the priesthood would be extended to all races, just as the Gospel was finally extended from the nation of Israel to the whole world in the time of the early Apostles.”  A few issues here:  1) not sure the term “bloodlines” is accurate or relevant to the ban in practice, and 2) saying that it was clear from the beginning that the PH would be extended is optimistically naive.  There are many early leader quotes that contradict that.
  • “Priesthood had historically been limited as to who could hold it during ancient times as well as modern, for purposes known only to God. For example, during the time of the Old Testament, only one tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, (Levi) could hold the Priesthood. In the New Testament times with Jesus only Jews could hold the Priesthood, no gentiles at all. It took a revelation from God to Peter that the Gospel could be preached openly to non-Jews.”  This is probably the best version of this type of answer I saw.
  • “Priesthood in the LDS Church is not a “right” or title. Rather, it is the authority to act in the name of God. Only those who live God’s teachings to guide their lives can receive it, and even then, it is only active when the priesthood holder is living in harmony with God. As a result, throughout history most people have not been given the priesthood. Not that they will never get it–they’ll just get it when God feels that they are ready for it.”  OK, this one sounds like he’s implying that blacks didn’t have it because they weren’t worthy (and by extension, that women are not worthy?)
• No, and women are still restricted.  I suppose girl power is great and all, but why bring that up?  Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think it’s a bit tone-deaf not to mention it when we’re patting ourselves on the back for being so color-blind.
  • “That is true, but the only restrictions now are dependent on worthiness… and gender, I suppose. Men are the only ones allowed to hold the priesthood, but it is part of a wonderful design to keep order. Women have just as much right to the priesthood as men do, but do not themselves hold those keys.”  You go, girl!
• No, and I know someone black who is a Mormon.  At best this seems like tokenism.  At worst, it reminds people how rare black members still are as a result of this practice, and points out (truthfully) that only one race was restricted.  This works better if the person we know is someone close to us, not if we knew some black person once who was OK with being Mormon despite the policy.
  • “No. Where I live, in the Washington DC area, we have a number of black members. Several years ago, we had a black member of the bishopric. One of the other wards in my stake has a black bishop. Gladys Knight, a black gospel singer, is a convert to the Church and has performed in our Stake Center.”

Mormon-speak:

• Into the Waters of Baptism.  “Since the beginning of the Church people of all races have been welcomed into the waters of baptism, given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and equally promised the highest blessings of salvation.”  I suppose it does point out the fact that we are baptizers by immersion, but it just seems like a GC-wannabe way of saying people can join the church.
• Bloodlines.  “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines”  Outside the history channel and the church, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word “bloodlines” used.

Other interesting observations:

• Policy.  We seem to be pretty consistently in agreement that the race ban was a policy, not a doctrine.
• Ham doctrine & other racist protestant teachings.  Racist speculations about the reasons for the ban (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) have likewise been put to bed.

What I might have said:

• No, and I’m black (but the picture might give me away).
• I would probably just say “no,” and that the church is global and includes members of all races.  I would probably not even mention the PH ban.

What would you say?  Did you like the member answers to these questions?  Different ones than I did?  Discuss.

Sometimes the act of seeing, the presence of an observer and how the observer chooses to look actually changes recordable reality.  That is, depending on whether you look, and how you look changes reality.  This isn’t just perceived differences, but actual take a picture of the outcome and pass it around for others to look at the picture differences.

The easiest example is light passing through one or more slits and exposing an image on photographic paper.  If you have one slit, then the light fans out in a wave and the paper is exposed completely (it all turns black from exposure).  If you have two slits, the light fans out in a wave and creates interference patterns (like waves will do) and you get bands on the paper.  If you slow it down so the light only goes off one photon at a time, it builds up into the same result, which is kind of neat.  With two slits, even one photon at a time the light creates interference with itself when it isn’t really there yet.  [for a better explanation:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment]

But, if you fire the photons off one at a time with two slits and watch the light go through the slits, it suddenly acts like there is only one slit (because it is actually only going through a single slit at any one time).  The photographic image it creates changes if you watch it go through the slits.  By observing what is happening you change the result, even though you aren’t interacting with the light other than with the force of your regard.

But what does that mean to my life if someone or somebody is watching me?  Does God change the shape and pattern of my life by being aware of it?  How much of reality can be affected by just how God chooses to see it or let others see it?

**I’ll note that this post makes for three on dualities, though the second of mine, thus being both the third and the second post on how things can be different things at the same time. Some differences, and some types of differences, are more meaningful than others. But the effect of an observer is one more way that things can be more than one thing at the same time and why it matters.

argumentum ad hominem.

Now, what makes it a non-sequitur (see the link for a definition) is the absurdity of the phrase itself.

How can someone’s opinion be wrong?

It cannot be, for each is entitled to his or her opinion. Now, an opinion can be based on incorrect, outdated or incomplete information, but in and of itself, an opinion cannot be wrong.

Take for example, recent discussions here on Mormon Matters. There are certain topics that engender (an ironic use of the word, I suppose) heated discussions. Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage (SSM) are at the top of the list.

With regard to permitting SSM, if you are against it, you are labeled a bigot, if you are for it (and a member of the LDS Church), you are borderline apostate and if you practice it, you are labeled a deviant. All the while the conversation states that people are entitled to their opinion and free to do, say and think what they choose.

But not really. Not if you read the comments and the discussions that transpire.

In many cases, the unspoken phrase, “your opinion is wrong” permeates the comments.  Again, the opinion may be based on religious, societal, biological or even incorrect information or views.  But, it is just that, an opinion.

Some opinions carry more weight than others.  A court “opinion” may carry the weight of law. An opinion of an ecclesiastical authority may result in Church discipline and the opinion of a teacher may result in a particular grade.  In some cases, opinions count for almost nothing, like the countless, endless discussions you hear on TV and radio talk shows. And, pretty much for most of the discussions here.

So how many times have you evoked the phrase, “your opinion is wrong” in the course of your discussions?”

BTW, if you disagree with anything I’ve said in this post, yes, you guess it, “your opinion is wrong.”

http://www.blacklds.org/renee-olson-full-testimony

Her Facebook memorial page here:

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Renee-Olson-memorial/158092054201230

She will be missed.