After listening, we hope you’ll read and then contribute to a great discussion below!

Links to Brent Beal’s two “A Mormon in the Cheap Seats” posts that provided a springboard to this discussion: Build Out, Not Up and On Testimonies

The LDS Church issued the following statement:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets today’s decision.  California voters have twice been given the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state and both times have determined that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We agree.  Marriage between a man and a woman is the bedrock of society.

“We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution—marriage.

“There is no doubt that today’s ruling will add to the marriage debate in this country, and we urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.”  (LDS Church Website)

There are some interesting parts of the ruling which goes into the State’s interest in marriage as a societal institution and a portion that notes “Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation. No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation.” And, in a rather fascinating conclusion, the Judge writes, “Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.”

So there you have it.  While this is but a first step toward a ruling by the US Supreme Court, I wonder what will happen?  With the current make-up of the Court, there is no forgone conclusion that this ruling will be upheld on appeal.

Frankly, I thought the opponents of Proposition 8 made a much better case than the proponents. So, the Pro-8 people ought better get their act together, if they think they have a chance on appeal. If the defense in this case was the best they can do, they should just pack it in now. it was just terrible.

Whether California resumes the issuance of marriage licenses to gay couples is also still up in the air as they are proceeding with more caution this time than last.

I am beginning to think that SSM (same sex marriage) is going to happen whether the LDS Church, other Churches and opponents like it or not. It is already legal in a few states and, in my mind, it is only a matter of time.  Whether opposed or not, folks will just have to get used to it.

The question is; two-fold:

1. What is, if any, the slippery slope this will lead to?  Polygamy and polyandry? Churches forced to recognize and perform same-sex marriages in their churches and temples? Other odd combinations of coupling?
2. What will be the reaction of the LDS Church and other Churches to the ultimate end of marriage just between a man and a woman? Another revelation?

“Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in the platforms of various political parties.” (Emphasis mine.)

Why does it seem that many Mormons don’t seem to believe this, despite the church’s oft-quoted emphasis that the church is politically neutral?

On May 13, 1969, Elder Hugh B Brown of the First Presidency quoted John Gardner, former secretary of health, education, and welfare under Lyndon B. Johnson.  Gardner gave a very interesting definition of political extremism:

Political extremism involves two prime ingredients: An excessively simple diagnosis of the world’s ills and a conviction that there are identifiable villains back of it all. . . . Blind belief in one’s cause and a low view of the morality of other Americans–these seem mild failings. But they are the soil in which ranker weeds take root . . . terrorism, and the deep, destructive cleavages that paralyze a society.[John Gardner, No Easy Victories (New York: Harper and Row, 1969), 8, 9.]

The text of Brown’s speech can be found here.  Almost exactly one year prior to Brown’s speech referenced above, he delivered the Commencement Address at BYU in May 1968.  Most of you remember his now famous speech called “Profile of a Prophet.”  It’s a fantastic address as he outlines a legal argument to a Canadian judge on why Joseph Smith is a prophet.  I recently listened to the entire speech.

During the first 3 minutes of the speech, Brown gives a few jokes and advice, and then he gave a few words about Politics, before addressing his main topic of “Profile of a Prophet.”  I’d like to quote his words of advice to the graduating students.  I’d like to highlight some things I find particularly interesting.

“You young people are leaving your university at a time in which our nation is engaged in an increasingly abrasive and strident process of electing a president. I wonder if you would permit me as one who has managed to survive a number of these events to pass on to you a few words of counsel.

First, I’d like you to be reassured that the leaders of both major political parties in this land are men of integrity, and unquestioned patriotism. Beware of those who feel obliged to prove their own patriotism by calling into question the loyalty of others. Be skeptical of those who attempt to demonstrate their love of country by demeaning its institutions. Know that men of both major political parties who guide the nation’s executive, legislative, and judicial branches are men of unquestioned loyalty and we should stand by and support them, and this refers not only to one party but to all.

Strive to develop a maturity of mind and emotion and a depth of spirit which will enable you to differ with others on matters of politics without calling into question the integrity of those with whom you differ. Allow within the bounds of your definition of religious orthodoxy variation of political belief. Do not have the temerity to dogmatize on issues where the Lord has seen fit to be silent. I’ve found by long experience that our two-party system is sound. Beware of those who are so lacking in humility, that they cannot come within the framework of one of our two great parties.

Our nation has avoided chaos, like that is gripping France today, because men have been able to temper their own desires sufficiently, seek broad agreement within one of the two major parties, rather than forming splinter groups around their one radical idea.

Our two party system has served us well, and should not be lightly discarded. At a time when radicals of right or left inflame race against race, avoid those who teach evil doctrines of racism. When our Father declared that we, his children, were brothers and sisters, he did not limit this relationship on the basis of race. Strive to develop that true love of country, that realizes that real patriotism must include within it a regard for the people of the rest of the globe. Patriotism has never demanded of good men hatred of another country as proof of one’s love for his own. Require the tolerance and compassion of others and for them. Those with different politics or race or religion will be demanded by the heavenly parentage which we all have in common.

-Hugh B. Brown, Commencement address, Brigham Young University, May 31, 1968

I posted a slightly different version of this post on my blog.  The first few people commented that the politicians of the 1960′s must have been “Men of Integrity”, but our current politicians are not.  Let’s look at the 60′s for a moment.  Lyndon B Johnson’s ratings were so low, that he chose not to run for re-election.   Robert F Kennedy was shot and killed just 1 week after Elder Brown’s address, joining his brother John who had been shot and killed just a few years prior.  Martin Luther King Jr had been killed just 7 weeks prior to this address (on April 4.)

John F Kennedy had a reputation as a bit of a womanizer.  In 1968, Americans were quite sour on the VietNam War.  The sexual revolution was in full swing, and the Women’s Liberation movement was well under way.  The Bay of Pigs was a disaster in Cuba, and we had just gone through the Cuban Missile Crisis.  People were building bomb shelters for fear of Nuclear War with the USSR.  The Cold War was as cold as it ever was.  Suffice it to say, this decade was a time of tumult.

In the 1968 election that Brown referred to, Nixon won a 3 way race over D-Hubert Humphrey, and I-George Wallace. Let’s not forget that Wallace was later shot in 1972, and we all know what happened to Nixon. I didn’t know what happened in France in 1968, so I looked it up on Wikipedia. Apparently there were some big-time riots, strikes, and protests that almost brought the French government down.

I think it was a much more divisive time than today, though today is a very divisive time.  I don’t understand why our country has become so partisan, and why we don’t try to work together more.  People are gravitating to the extremes of MoveOn.org, and the Tea Party.  Brown saw a similar time of rancorous partisanship in the 60′s, and quoted Gardner:

As these antagonisms become more intense, the pathology is much the same. . . . The ingredients are, first, a deep conviction on the part of the group as to its own limitless virtue or the overriding sanctity of its cause; second, grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others; third, a chronically aggrieved feeling that power has fallen into the hands of the unworthy (that is, the hands of others). . . .

Politics can always bring out a lot of rants, and often both sides will have “grave doubts concerning the moral integrity of all others.”  I’m sure all of you have your pet political issues.  Can we avoid these antagonisms as we discuss the state of our country?

What say you?  Are you guilty of Elder Brown’s definition of political extremism?  Can you disagree with either President Bush or President Obama without questioning their integrity, just as Elder Brown did with Presidents Johnson, Kennedy, and Nixon?  Do you demean the institutions of the Congress or the Supreme Court because you don’t agree with particular legislation or court rulings?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The friendship between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith is very fascinating.  Sidney was one of the earliest, and most impressive converts, joining the church in December 1830.  His training as a Baptist minister was especially helpful to Joseph, and he often preached many wonderful sermons.  As time wore on, there were some really interesting issues between Joseph and Sidney.  Richard Van Wagoner wrote a biography called Sidney Rigdon: Portrait of Religious Excess.  The Missouri and Nauvoo periods were especially tumultuous.

With Sidney running the church in Quincy, Joseph and others were still in the Liberty Jail.  Through the first 10 years of the church, Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith seem to be in lock step with each other.  However, the Nauvoo period seems to show a few cracks in the friendship.  Were they serious?  Well, Joseph called Sidney to be his Vice Presidential nominee–but I’ll get to that later.

The people of Quincy, Illinois took in many of the saints following the expulsion from Missouri.  In 2002, the Tabernacle Choir did a benefit concert for the town of Quincy, to thank them for their kindness.  With Sidney released from Liberty Jail, his mood improved greatly, and he worked to impeach the government of Missouri.  At this time, Joseph Smith chose to reverse himself on the work of gathering saints, as well as consecration (or “common stock”, as in the letter below.)  From Liberty Jail, Joseph wrote to the church in Quincy on Mar 25,1839, that the saints should settle “in the most safe and quiet places they can find” between Kirtland and Far West.  Additionally, there must be “no organization of large bodies upon common stock principals.”  Footnote 9 on page 273 of book expounds this.

No further common stock programs were established during Joseph Smith’s life.  The prophet shaded the truth during his 1839-40 trip to Washington, DC., when he stated that Mormons would not share property in common.  “‘It has been reported by some vicious or de[s]igning characters’, he said, ‘that the church of Latter Day Saints believe in having their pro[p]erty in common and also the leaders of sa[id] church controlls said propperty….This is a base fabrication,’ he insisted, ‘on the contrary no person’s feelings can be more repugnant to such a principle than mine[,] every person in this Church has a right to controll his own proppe[r]ty’” (Joseph Smith to Mr. Editor [of the Chester County Register and Examiner], 22 Jan. 1840.)

After 2 failed attempts to escape from jail, Joseph and others bribed some guards with a promise of $800.  They returned to Quincy, and made plans to settle in Commerce (later named Nauvoo.)  Smith and Rigdon bought (for the church) $18,000 worth of property in Nauvoo, and were swindled out of $80,000 in Iowa.  As the saints moved to Nauvoo, Rigdon contracted malaria, which would plague him for years.  While there are several true reports of Joseph healing people of malaria, Sidney was not one of them.

The leadership continued to press for redress of the wrongs in Missouri, and traveled to DC to speak with Pres Van Buren.  Due to Rigdon’s eloquence, he was selected to be the spokesman for the group.  Rigdon made a valiant effort to travel to DC, but was just too sick, so Joseph Smith became the spokesman.  Smith was not impressed with Van Buren, and the meeting was a disappointment to the saints.

Nauvoo was initially prosperous, but not for long.  From page 278,

Although Nauvoo’s population increased dramatically in the early 1840′s, much of its short-lived prosperity was based on the same perilous real estate speculation that brought down Kirtland’s economy.  Rigdon and the Smiths once again pinned their financial aspirations on the hopes that new converts, aware of the prophet’s dark visions of America’s future, would flee their homelands, gather to Nauvoo–proclaimed city of refuge–and purchase property from the real estate arm of the church.  But of the more than 3,000 British converts who arrived in Nauvoo before 1846, most were poverty-stricken refugees from the English working class.  Sobering to the First Presidency was that real estate sales fell far below their expectation, forcing the brethren to default on the promissory notes they had co-signed.  Because the church was not yet a legal entity in 1839, Ridgon, the Smith brothers, and their wives were personally liable for the organization’s nearly $150,000 debt.

…

To pay for the vast acreage, Mormon property owners were advised to sign their real estate over to the church, through agents Isaac Galland and William Smith, in exchange for an equivalent value of land in Nauvoo…  Overwhelmed by their obligations, Rigdon and the Smith brothers sought a way out of their financial problems: bankruptcy.  [which happened in 1842]

I’d like to address to an awkward episode between Rigdon and Smith.  In 1842, Smith tested Rigdon’s friendship when Joseph proposed plural marriage to Sidney’s 19-year old daughter, Nancy.  Nancy was summoned on two occasions to meet Joseph, and was repulsed by the idea, threatening to “raise the neighbors” if Joseph didn’t let her go.  Through his scribe Joseph wrote an apology to Nancy, which she handed to her boyfriend, Francis Higbee.  The letter got out, (and was published in John C. Bennett’s expose on Mormon Polygamy–more on Bennett later) and eventually got to Sidney’s attention.

At first, Joseph denied all to Sidney.  Nancy stormed into the room saying,

“Joseph Smith you are telling that which is not true[.]  you did make such a proposition to me, and you know it.”  Another unnamed person said, “Nancy are you not afraid to call the Lord['s] anointed a cursed liar[?]“  “No”, replied Nancy, “I am not for he does lie and he knows it.”

[Rigdon's son-in-law, George] Robinson wrote that Smith, after acknowledging his proposition, sought a way out of the crisis by claiming he had approached Nancy “to ascertain whether she was virtuous or not, and took that course to learn the facts.”  But Sidney found that rationalization feeble.  Convinced of Smith’s involvement in the “spiritual wife business,” as Sidney later termed it, Rigdon concluded that Smith had “contracted a whoring spirit.”  This is why, according to Wickliffe [Sidney's son], Rigdon told family members immediately after the prophet left their home that Smith “could never be sealed to one of his daughters without his consent as he did not believe in the doctrine.”

Chapter 21 is the first chapter to address polygamy in the book, though it does go back in time to address rumors of polygamy in Kirtland and other places.  Let me sidetrack to Emma for a minute.  At times the issue of polygamy…

left Joseph and Emma’s marriage hanging by a thread.  Emma spent the last three years of her husband’s life jealously battling his errant yearnings, more than once threatening to return to her family in New York.  On one occasion, according to Smith’s private secretary, she threatened that if he continued to “indulge himself she would too.”  [William Clayton Diary] Although Emma apparently countenanced two of her husband’s 1843 sealings–to Emily and Eliza Partridge–she recanted within a day and demanded that Joseph give them up or “blood should flow.”  Her change of heart came after she found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home.  The realization that the sealing represented more than a “spiritual marriage” or “adoptive ordinance” devastated her. [From page 293]

Some of the footnotes are very interesting on this subject.  Footnote 26 on page 305 quotes an 1844 expose of Mormonism.  I don’t know if this can be corroborated, but I found it interesting.

“Emma’s threat to “be revenged and indulge herself” may have been merely a warning to the prophet to give up his spiritual wives.  But Joseph H. Jackson, a non-Mormon opportunist who gained the confidence of the prophet in Nauvoo, recorded in an 1844 expose of Mormonism:  “Emma wanted [William] Law for a spiritual husband,” and because Joseph “had so many spiritual wives, she thought it but fair that she would at least have one man spiritually sealed up to her and that she wanted Law, because he was such a ‘sweet little man.’”

Although there is nothing to suggest that Law and Emma were more to each other than friends, Law later confirmed that Joseph “offered to furnish his wife Emma with a substitute for h im, by way of compensation for his neglect of her, on condition that she would forever stop her opposition to polygamy and permit him to enjoy his young wives in peace and keep some of them in his house and to be well treated, etc.” (Salt Lake Tribune, 3 July 1887.)

Faithful Dissident talks about a deathbed confession of Emma, where Emma again denies polygamy.  Footnote 30, page 304 ”In 1846, two years after Joseph’s death, Emma Smith, in a conversation with Joseph W. Coolidge, remarked that “Joseph had abandoned plurality of wives before his death.”  Coolidge indicated from personal experience that he knew otherwise.  After a heated exchange Emma retorted with exasperation, “Then he was worthy of the death he died.”  (Joseph F. Smith diary, 28 Aug 1870.)

Another crack in the Rigdon and Smith friendship occurred in relation to the post office.  Rigdon had secured the lucrative position, wherein he was paid for every piece of mail that passed through.  It was one of the more lucrative positions one could hold.  Smith suspected Rigdon may have been trying to undermine Joseph, and wrote several letters trying to get Rigdon fired from the post office, and have Smith installed as his replacement.

John C Bennett, a former close personal aide of Joseph Smith, was excommunicated for unauthorized polygamy.  He then became a virulent anti-mormon.  According to Van Wagoner, Bennett is responsible for instigating many Missourians to continue to try to extradite Joseph, and also may have had a role in organizing the mobs which killed Joseph.  Bennett wrote a letter to Rigdon, trying to get help with his plan to bring down the prophet.  On page 315,

In early January, however, Rigdon did receive a message from Bennett.  The 10 January 1843 letter, also addressed to Orson Pratt, incorrectly assumed that its recipients would sympathize with Bennett’s plan to orchestrate the prophet’s downfall.

“Dear Friends–It is a long time since I have written you, and I should now much desire to see you; but I leave tonight to Missouri, to meet the messenger charged with the arrest of Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Lyman Wight and others, for murder, burglary, treason, etc., etc., who will be demanded in a few days on new indictments, found by the grand Jury of a called court, on the original evidence and in relation to which a nolle prosequi was entered by the district attorney.  New proceedings have been gotten up on the old charges and no habeus corpus can then save them.  We shall try Smith on the Boggs case when we get him into Missouri.  The war goes on, and although Smith thinks he is now safe, the enemy is near, even at the door.  He has awoke the wrong passenger….

P.S.  Will Mr. Rigdon please hand this letter to Mr. Pratt after reading?

After Rigdon read the letter he immediately handed it to Mr. Pratt, who then turned it over to Smith.  The prophet, initially dismayed that Rigdon has given the letter first to Pratt, took the dispatch to John Taylor, editor of Times and Seasons.  Smith instructed Taylor to publish the letter along with a statement condemning Rigdon’s actions.

….

Smith requested Taylor “to prefer charges against Sidney Rigdon before a court composed of twenty-four High Priests and three Bishops.”….  Before Taylor could publish the editorial or initiate action against Rigdon, the prophet approached Rigdon and “charged him with being leagued with [his] enemies to destroy him.”  Rigdon, according to Taylor, responded:  “I know it was wrong [not to give him the letter sooner]; but I darst not take upon myself the responsibility of making it known,” apparently because of his position as postmaster.  Rigdon’s explanation satisfied the prophet.  When Taylor asked him if he should proceed with the trial and publish the editorial, Smith replied, “I think you had better not, we will save him if we can.”

I want to mention one other footnote about Governor Boggs, which was alluded to in Bennett’s letter to Rigdon.  Governor Boggs had survived an assassination attempt.  Many people then and now believe Porter Rockwell, a body guard of Joseph Smith was responsible for the attempt.  Footnote 8 on page 325 says, ”The attempt on Boggs’s life took place on the night of 6 May 1842.  Orrin Porter Rockwell, one of Smith’s closest friends, was arrested later that year and charged with the attempted murder.  Although neither the prophet nor Rockwell was convicted of the crime, Rockwell never denied shooting Boggs.  General Patrick E. Conner reported that Rockwell told him, “I shot through the window and thought I had killed him, but I had only wonded him.  I was damned sorry that I had not killed the son of a bitch.”

I guess what is amazing to me is that Joseph continued to try to undermine Rigdon’s position as postmaster, and still suspected Rigdon was behind attempts to have Smith arrested.  Yet it seems they reconciled.  In 1844, dissatisfied with the current crop of presidential candidates, Joseph decided to run for President of the United States as a candidate of the Mormon Reform Party. He was nominated during a political caucus on January 29, 1844.

Joseph’s first choice for Vice President was James Arlington Bennett.  However, Bennett was ineligible due his Irish citizenship.  Joseph’s second choice was Solomon Copeland of Tennessee, who was not interested.  Sidney Rigdon was his third choice, and Rigdon enthusiastically accepted.  He gave a rousing address in General Conference on April 6 and 7, 1844.

The US Constitution states that the President and Vice President must be from two different states.  So, Sidney was called on a mission to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to set up residency.  (Rigdon was born in St. Clair Township which now consists of present-day neighborhoods in the City of Pittsburgh.)  He left for Pennsylvania on June 18.

Just prior to Rigdon leaving Nauvoo, William Law, a counselor in the First Presidency, Law’s wife and four others were excommunicated for opposing polygamy.  Rigdon informed Law that if they would “let all the difficulties drop” that Smith would restore Law and his friends back to their offices within the church.  Law refused, and helped print the Nauvoo Expositor on which came out on June 7, exposing polygamy.

Smith ordered the destruction of the press as a public nuisance.  On June 14, Rigdon sent a letter to Illinois governor Thomas Ford, asking for help, while denouncing the paper.  On June 18, Rigdon left Nauvoo, arriving in Pittsburgh on June 27.  Joseph and Hyrum were killed the next day, on June 28 in a hail of gunfire at the Carthage Jail.  Rigdon learned of the news five days later.

So, what is your reaction to all the events of Nauvoo?  Unlike the William Law (editor of the Nauvoo Expositor), Sidney was publicly silent on polygamy, though he was personally repulsed by the practice.  How would you have reacted if Smith had proposed marriage to your 19-year old daughter?  What do you make of the incident where Joseph tried to get Sidney fired from the post office?  It seems to me that this was a real life soap opera.  The Nauvoo period alone would make a great movie.

I really enjoyed hearing President Carter discuss prayer during the peace negotiations between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin.  From page 70,

When we went to Camp David on September 5, 1978, Begin, Sadat, and I all wanted to pray.  But before our first talks, I spent several hours negotiating the text of the prayer.  I got a proposed draft from a prayer group in Washington and I made some edits.  Sadat approved it, Begin made some changes, and we issued the prayer the first day….

While we were at Camp David those thirteen days, Begin and Sadat were almost totally incompatible.  They didn’t like each other and kept resurrecting ancient grievances.  So after the third day I wouldn’t let them see each other again.

[Larry King]  There are stories the talks almost ended without a resolution a number of times.

[Carter] I remember one day, maybe the tenth, Sadat told Moshe Dayan he would make no more concessions in the negotiating text that I was carrying back and forth.  Sadat told his people at Camp David to pack, and he told National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to arrange a helicopter to take them back to Washington.

I was in my cabin talking to Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and others about budget matters.  I was in jeans and a T-shirt.  I remember changing into a suit and going to Sadat’s cabin, where I had a very sharp exchange with him.  I accused him of breaking promises he had made.  Then I went outside to a quiet place by myself and prayed.

[Larry King]  The Camp David peace accords were signed three days later, on September 17, in a ceremony at the White House.

“Pray for your enemies” has an interesting meaning when looking at the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty.  Do you pray for you enemies?

I also enjoyed Larry’s exchange with Ralph Reed.  From page 184, Reed said,

One of the things the Bible teaches us to do is pray for our leaders.  It doesn’t say pray for the leaders of the political party with which you are affiliated.  It doesn’t say pray for Ronald Reagan but not Bill Clinton.  that’s something we have to rediscover.

[Larry King] Do you include Bill Clinton in your prayers?

Yes.  I pray for our national leaders, that they will be wise and that they will be fair and judicious.  I hope that liberals said the same prayer when Ronald Reagan was in the White House.  On the day Reagan was shot, I think every American prayed for his health and his protection.  Maybe there were some who didn’t, but I think most did.

The book was published in 1998, so I’ll update question:  do you pray for President Obama, Harry Reid, and Mitt Romney, John McCain and (fill in your favorite/least favorite politician here)?

“Smith was forced into politics by the abuse that the Mormons received. As soon as they were driven out of their first city site in Independence, Mo., he turned to the government for redress. He never obtained it. No level of government, from local justices of the peace to governors to the president of the United States – to whom he constantly appealed – ever came to the defense of the Saints. But Joseph Smith became a great devotee of constitutional rights because they seemed like his only hope. He said some very extravagant things about the Constitution being God-given because of those rights and became quite conversant in constitutional matters. He even visited the president of the United States, Martin Van Buren, in the White House in 1839.

Gradually, then, Joseph Smith backed into American politics. In the fall of 1843, as the 1844 campaign began to take shape, the authorities of the church wrote to all of the known political candidates asking them about their views of the Mormons, and none returned a satisfactory answer from the Mormon point of view. The Mormons wanted a pledge that these candidates would protect them if they were attacked again, and they couldn’t get it.

Joseph Smith was nominated as a protest candidate in February of 1844. Like other protest candidates, he began to warm to his work and got quite excited about it. He may have dreamed for a moment that through some strange concatenation of events, he would get elected. Every candidate has to dream such things.

His involvement in politics was manifested in a political platform of which he was very proud. He would bring it out whenever he had visitors and read from it. It is an interesting document because it represents a man whose world had been his own people, whose own project had been to create a kingdom of God, and who now had to turn his mind to politics.”

I want to address some really interesting parts of Joseph Smith’s platform that I found really interesting.  Regarding slavery, Joseph Smith came up with a solution that would have avoided the Civil War.  He advocated low taxes (just like conservatives do today.)  I found most of his points very appealing.  Let me quote from Quinn’s book, page 119,

“Smith’s Views revealed him as more than a one-issue candidate.  For the reform of government, he intended to reduce the size and salary of Congress.  In judicial reform, he advocated rehabilitation of convicts through work projects and vocational training and liberal pardoning.  In economic reform, he proposed less taxation, free trade, secure international rights on the high seas, and establishment of a national bank in every state and territory.  On the slavery question, he advocated compensated emancipation through the sale of public lands.  To cope with resulting social stress, he advocated the relocation of the several million freed slaves to Texas.  In keeping with the spirit of “Manifest Destiny” in the 1840s, he proposed annexation of Oregon and Texas and whatever parts of Canada wished to join the Union.  As a reflection of the Mormon expulsion from Missouri, Smith’s platform also advocated presidential intervention in civil disturbances within states.  As one author noted, this interventionist impulse ‘did not exist until the Civil War and Reconstruction.’”

So I want to address several points, and give my comments.

1.      Reduce the size and salary of congress.  Wow!  Congress continues to grow in size with each census.  I’d love to cut salary, but on the other hand, the only people who go to Congress are the rich.  Perhaps increasing salary would invite more middle class types.  I’m not sure how cutting the size of congress would impact the nation.  I need a constitutional scholar on this one.

2.      Rehab convicts – I like this idea.  While everyone likes to think they’re tough on crime and wants to throw ‘em all in jail and throw away the key, the reality is we can’t build prisons fast enough to keep pace.  And the prisoners we do have end up becoming more skilled at criminal activity.  It seems our current procedures are not working.  I’m with Smith on this one.

3.      Liberal Pardoning – Hmmmm, didn’t we go through that with Bill Clinton?  Mike Huckabee has some pardon problems of his own.  I’m not sure I like this one as it has the capacity for abuse, and possible risks to public safety.

4.      Less taxes – yes, but we need to balance the budget, not simply reduce taxes.

5.      Free trade – I guess he would support NAFTA

6.      Secure International Rights on high seas – It seems pirates are making another comeback.  I’m with Smith on this one.

7.      Establishment of national bank in every state and territory – Bad idea.  We are currently experiencing banking problems with banks getting too big and doing bad mortgages. Joseph has a bad record of running a bank.  See my post on the Kirtland Bank Failure.

8.      Sale of public lands for sale of slaves -  I like it.  That’s a much better solution than the Civil War was.  Richard Bushman commented about this at the Pew Research Forum,

He began by citing the Declaration of Independence, the famous passages about all men being equal and endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, which of course could be a lead-in to religious rights. But he didn’t use it that way. Instead, in the very next sentence, he talked about the obvious contradiction: “Some two or three million people are held as slaves for life because the spirit in them is covered with a darker skin than ours.” His platform called for the elimination of slavery, proposing that the funds from the sale of Western lands, a major source of revenue along with the tariff in those days, be devoted to purchasing slaves from their masters in order to avoid the conflict that would otherwise ensue.

Josiah Quincy, soon to be mayor of Boston, visited Joseph Smith in the spring of 1844 when this platform was in circulation. Much later, Quincy wrote about that visit, saying that Joseph Smith’s proposal for ending slavery resembled one that Emerson made 11 years later in 1855.

As Quincy put it, writing retrospectively in the 1880s, “We, who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty” – Joseph Smith’s and Emerson’s – “would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader who had committed himself, in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844?”

9.      Send all the freed slaves to Texas – Wow, what would Texas be like if that happened?  Remember at this time, Texas was trying to become independent nation from Mexico.  About 1848 came the Mexican-American War, freeing Texas from Mexico and establishing Texas as an independent nation.  (Texas was later annexed into the US.)

10.  Annex Texas, Oregon, and parts of Canada??? I know Canadians like the US, but I didn’t know they wanted to be part of our union!!!

11.  Presidential authority to get involved in state disturbances.  As I mentioned in my Sidney Rigdon post, Van Buren refused to get involved in Missouri because he didn’t feel that was a federal mandate.  Joseph was 20 years ahead of actions which resulted in the Civil War.  It’s interesting to see how Joseph would have wanted to handle the federal raid in Waco, and the state raid of the FLDS (both in Texas.)

Finally, let me conclude with Bushman again.

This part of his platform accords perfectly with what modern people like us would have liked a candidate in 1844 to say. But Smith went beyond our sense of political propriety in other parts of his platform: he blended his role as candidate with his role as prophet. He was already mayor of Nauvoo and lieutenant general of the Nauvoo Legion when he ran for the presidency. He seemingly had no sense that church and state should be separated. He gave no hint that he was going to give up his religious offices if he were to become president of the United States.

In the closing peroration of his platform, Joseph Smith indirectly, but I think clearly, offered himself to be the priest of the people, as well as the president. “I would, as the universal friend of man, open the prisons, open the eyes, open the ears, and open the hearts of all people to behold and enjoy freedom, unadulterated freedom; and God, who once cleansed the violence of the earth with flood, whose Son laid down his life for the salvation of all his father gave him out of the world, and who has promised that he will come and purify the world again with fire in the last days, should be supplicated by me for the good of all the people.” He would be the intercessor as priest as well as prophet.

Of course, that is point at which moderns part company with Joseph Smith. We don’t want a prophet with his authoritative words from God governing the nation. That seems to lead to the exclusion of unbelievers and the repression of naysayers. All the alarm bells go off when we see these roles merging.

But I would appeal to you, before you turn away completely from that idea, to pay heed to the underlying theme of that platform and that proposal. I think it can be argued that Joseph Smith actually felt he was fulfilling one of America’s dreams. We think of the American dream as the promise of ascent for the wretched refuse of the teeming shores – the promise that in America, everyone has a chance to prosper and to achieve respectability. That is a dream for the individual.

So, what do you think of Smith’s platform?

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

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

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

Here is what I mean.

Homosexuality and Protecting the Family

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

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

Socialism

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

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

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

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

“Christianity has nothing to do

with either modern capitalism

or modern Communism,

for Christianity has

a capitalism of its own

and a communism of its own.

Modern capitalism

is based on property without responsibility,

while Christian capitalism is based on property with responsibility.

Modern communism

is based on poverty through force

while Christian communism

is based on poverty through choice.

For a Christian,

voluntary poverty is the ideal

as exemplified by St. Francis of Assisi,

while private property

is not an absolute right, but a gift

which as such can not be wasted,

but must be administered

for the benefit of God’s children.”

Ecology

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

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

War

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

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

Healthcare

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

God’s Politics

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

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

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

I’ve been kicking this post around in my mind for a while now so it came as no surprise when I found a Gallop Poll article entitled “Mormons Most Conservative Major Religious Group in U.S.” A whopping 59% of active Mormons consider themselves conservative; another 31% moderate, and only 8% liberal. In addition, 16% of active Mormons consider themselves “very” conservative, compared with only 1% as “very” liberal.

What surprised and saddened me even more than this disproportionate political bias was not that a majority of Mormons (inside and outside Utah) are conservative, but that 61% percent of “lapsed Mormons” (those who self-identify with Mormonism but seldom attend church meetings) consider themselves liberal or moderate; liberal “lapsed Mormons” are 20% alone. So that means, that 6 out of every ten people who do not regularly attend church, yet maintain ties, do not identify with the Republican Party or the conservative movement. These statistics do not count the thousands of people who have left the church permanently or no longer identify themselves with Mormonism due to feeling isolated, alienated or estranged by the politically conservative majority.

Following are a few personal experiences and ideas about how liberal and radical Mormons can begin to turn the tide on this state of affairs and make the church a safe space for those of us who do not self-identify as conservative or Republican.

First and foremost, those of us with radical or liberal worldviews (I myself most closely identify with libertarian socialism), must not be afraid to speak up, put forth and defend radical and liberal interpretation of the Gospel in our meetings, and actively challenge interpretations that we disagree with. Could it be that the growth of the Mormon “Bloggernacle” in recent years has been a result of those of us too afraid or timid to speak up in Sunday School, Relief Society or Priesthood? Now, for some of us speaking up in church may sound like a daunting task, and indeed depending on who is teaching it can be; there is very seldom much time, and sometimes the topics come with a lot of cultural and historical baggage. Perhaps many of us have not spoken up during church because we fear that it will create contention or that we will be looked down upon. Although I am not exempt from biting my tongue in church, or letting a Republican talking point pass for a Gospel principle, I am almost always pleasantly surprised when I do choose to speak my mind during church meetings.

For example, during the Proposition 8 debate in California I was visiting my hometown in Southern California. I attended church. It happened to be testimony meeting and member after member was getting up to praise the wisdom of the proposition and expound the threats that its failure would present to the Church and the family. As I sat taking this in, my pulse quickened, my heart raced, and before I knew it I was in front of my childhood ward (including the area authority) denouncing the Proposition. I spoke from the heart, and as my voice shook, I declared that as a Christian my primary responsibility was to the Sermon on the Mount and that I believed it to be bad politics to get involved in a civil rights issue which would inevitably put us on the wrong side of justice (again). When the meeting was over, I was mobbed by old friends, scout leaders, Priests’ Quorum advisors, and new members. Many agreed with me, some thought I was crazy, some strongly disagreed with me; but they all expressed loved for me and wanted to thank me for expressing my heartfelt convictions. One woman, who stayed at a distance until all the others were gone, came and with tears in her eyes thanked me. She was a new member, and her son is gay. She had been feeling so alone and conflicted about the church’s involvement in this issue. We talked, hugged, and she left with a smile. On that day I had spoken my mind on a very controversial topic and although many members did not agree with my interpretation of the Gospel, I left the meeting feeling fulfilled and part of a community that loved me.

This is the climate that I know can exist in wards all over the world, but that many of us are afraid to bring about. I tell this story because I strongly believe that there is a place both in the Gospel and the Church for radicals and liberals. We can still be of one heart and one mind while disagreeing on the particulars of interpretation and application of Gospel principles.

Another personal experience: During Sunday School here in New Haven, Connecticut where I currently attend church, we were on the topic of helping the poor. This was a few weeks before President Monson decided to include helping the poor and needy in the now four-fold Church mission. A woman visiting the ward said that she and her husband had worked with homeless people and believed that it was wrong to give them anything because this deprived them of the opportunity to pull themselves up by their boot straps and take personal responsibility for their own bad choices; and besides, any money given to homeless people would inevitably be spent on booze anyway, so why support their immoral habits? Now, I personally have tremendous respect for the appeal to personal responsibility that many of my Republican and conservative friends make when discussing issues of social justice and poverty. However, this sister did not understand what the scriptures plainly teach concerning those who would seek our aid. So, in a calm fashion I raised my hand, and began reading the words of King Benjamin in Mosiah 4.

“17 Perhaps thou shalt say; The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God. 19 For behold, are we not all beggars?…”

King Benjamin here is uttering a strong condemnation of those of us who would refuse to give of our substance to the poor. However, the sister articulated a very common view in our society that poor people are poor because of bad choices. However, the radical Christ calls us to repentance. If someone asks of us, we must give; even if we can smell the alcohol on their breath. But this is not all. As Joseph Smith makes clear, we are to be actively engaged in a good cause (D & C 58:27), and working toward a society where there are no poor among us (Moses 7:18). Meaning, we are not just to give a regular fast offering, or a couple bucks to the guy outside the supermarket, but actively working toward a society where the structural and root causes of poverty are eliminated. We disagree on the appropriate institutional scale of implementing such a task in society, but nevertheless we are incontrovertible called to the task. The Sermon on the Mount, 3 Nephi, King Benjamin, the D & C, indeed the entire Book of Mormon all contain radical critiques of social inequality, seeking wealth for wealth’s sake and contain numerous admonitions to radical Christ-like love and economic cooperation. Sorry, Brother Beck, but social justice is the essence of the Gospel, and the fact that someone like Glenn Beck can read the same scriptures as me and not see that is appalling.

One might ask if I would simply flip the Gallop Poll statistic for a 60% liberal slant. My simple answer is no; what I really want is to see a healthy proportion of all political and social viewpoints; one that doesn’t automatically exclude social justice, preemptive war, the environment, or helping the poor as Gospel topics because they are too “political” while piously rallying the troops around “moral” issues such as prayer in school, abortion or gay marriage. That is a double standard that is only possible because of a overwhelming politically conservative bias by Church members and hence church programs. I am calling for this because it is in the tension between ideas that truth is found; as Lehi says to Jacob: “For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things, for if it were not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass” (2 Nephi 2:11). A diverse and healthy representation of political and social interpretations of the Gospel will lead us closer to true principles than close-minded political or religious dogmatism.

Brothers and sisters, do not allow conservative politics to pass as neutral theology, it is dishonest at best, and destructive at worst. It is driving good people out of the church and becomes a positive feedback loop: the more conservative the church culture becomes, the less tolerable it is for liberals and radicals. So, to all of you Beck-ites out there, this is our church too and we are not leaving.

Here are a few ideas for shifting Mormon culture:

• Participate in Mormon May Day on May 1-2. See www.mormonmayday.org for more details in the coming days

• If you haven’t already, read Approaching Zion by Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley

• Then, give Approaching Zion as a gift to at least one person this year

• Begin to compile a list of your favorite scriptures on social, environmental, and political topics

• Start a discussion group

• Set a personal goal to make at least one comment in your church classes

• Invite a less active radical or liberal member to your house for dinner to see if you share similar views

• Visit www.themormonworker.org for a radical approach to Mormon theology and consider subscribing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BiV’s recent post “Sod, Seed, Salvation: Abrahamic Covenant and the Claim to Palestine” brought me out of my normal lurking.  Modern Palestine and what I firmly believe to be the erroneous interpretation most members of the church have regarding events there always riles me up.  Usually I do the smart thing and bite my lip, but every once in a while I choose to enter the fray in full combat mode.  As I’ve found on most issues of debate, it doesn’t really matter how right I think I am the noise of the argument rarely does more than highlight who already believes what.  So my wish here is not to re-argue the questions of Palestine which I’ve already done enough of on this blog.  Instead, I’d like to talk about shoes.  No, not the famous Arab shoes, rather walking a mile in another’s shoes.

Most American (and many non-American) Mormons grow up with an instinctive ability to walk in a modern Zionists’ shoes [for those less familiar with the terminology, I prefer to use the term Zionist as opposed to Israeli as it better captures the political movement that supports the Israeli state on an international and local basis, and it captures pre- and post-1948 dynamics].  There is a pseudo-scriptural modern narrative that seems to easily link Jewish, Christian and LDS-specific views of the Abrahamic Covenant to modern Zionism.  Orson Hyde’s 1840s visit to Palestine and several subsequent visits by church leaders over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries seem to further fit neatly into that narrative, with a number of statements from church leaders that come across as clearly pro-Zionist.  Then there is the fact that the leaders of modern Zionism have been overwhelmingly Europeans with a very western mode of communicating (and in western languages much of the time) that is easier for American Mormons to relate to.  And sealing it all up there is the manner in which the Zionist version of events is almost the only one heard in American media, literature and entertainment, and it comes across sounding very neat, clean, and heroic.  It sounds to most like a clear cut case of good and evil, and it all makes it so very easy to sympathize with Zionism growing up as a Mormon and especially as an American Mormon.

I grew up with that narrative.  I was an unusually political teenager.  John Birch-style anti-Communist crusading and religious-political support for Zionism were two of my big shticks.  The morality of it all seemed clear as daylight, the religious tie-ins to my LDS faith felt unassailable.  I lapped up Leon Uris’ “Exodus” like it was the Bible itself.  But then something changed.  I got to BYU.  I decided to make these and related issues a major focus of my studies.  I won’t bore you with all the details, but in a nutshell what happened over the years to follow was that in seeking to prove what I already believed was right, I ended up seeing things from the other side’s point of view as well.  I walked a mile in a Palestinian’s shoes, and my view of things was never the same again.

Now, perhaps I’m not being generous enough to humanity as a whole in separating Mormons out on this count, but I have always believed that one of the most wonderful ‘weaknesses’ of Mormons is that we’re so darn nice.  I mean, obviously that’s a gross over-generalization.  But as long as I’m already in that realm, I do feel like our basic doctrines that say that we’re all children of God with eternal worth and potential, means we have a really hard time dismissing other people when placed face to face with them.  We may dislike people, we may get as caught up as other people in political and philosophical movements that make us theoretically despise other people, but somehow when we’re placed face to face, those of us who have a real belief in those core doctrines of the worth of souls feel an obligation to not utterly dismiss as worthless the person on the other side even if we find much about them obnoxious. And it is that part of your Mormon-ness I wish to appeal to today in regards to Palestine.  I don’t ask you to accept all my views (which can be somewhat seen in the voluminous comments I left on BiV’s previous post), but I would like to ask: will you as a Mormon walk a mile in a Palestinian’s shoes?

Obviously very few people can actually go live in the forced exile of a Lebanese Palestinian refugee camp or experience life under Zionist siege in Gaza, but if you have any interest in what’s going on, even a superficial interest, you can choose to read things from the other bank of the river at least occasionally.  I’d like to give you some suggestions on what you can read.  If you say you simply don’t agree with it up front, all I ask is that you suspend your judgment and listen to your Palestinian brothers and sisters.  See their tears, hear their stories with a clear mental slate, ask how it feels to be them.  God could just as easily have chosen you to have been born in their place after all.  Walk in their shoes from time to time, and when these issues hit the news and you get curious, make a point of saying “how can I make sure I see how this looks from the other side too?”

So, below I’m going to give three different types of links.  As I imagine many readers of this blog are more inclined to literature and the personal angle, I will first give some glimpses of the world of Palestinian literature and a few other related cultural tidbits.  As I imagine others are more into seeing the nitty-gritty facts, I’ll then give some links to the counter-facts which show that history looks quite different when viewed without the Zionist prism.  And lastly, I’ll give some links for sources one can regularly follow in English to see how the story in the present looks very different from the Palestinian side versus the Zionist or standard American side.

*****

LINKS 1: LITERATURE FROM THE PERSONAL SIDE

*The works of Ghassan Kanafani, especially his short stories and short novels “Land of the Sad Oranges”, “Men in the Sun”, “Letter from Gaza”, and “Return to Haifa” (the latter story was one of the first stories in Arab literature to deal with Zionists as three-dimensional human characters).  The two collections I link two below contain a nice and well-translated selection of his works.  When Kanafani was murdered by a Zionist car bomb in Beirut along with his niece in 1972 (incidentally, the man had never been involved in any military action in his life, he was a writer pure and simple), the world lost one of the finest rising authors in the Arabic language of the time.  Kanafani upset many people on all sides of the ideological divide because he insisted on portraying the Palestinian situation as it was really lived, with all the emotion experienced at a personal level, regardless of the political implications that human portrayal might have.  Reading his stories one feels the utter despondency of a father unable to care for his family having been shoved across the border with only the things they could carry, the desperation of trying to sneak across the borders in the Gulf in search of work but unacknowledged as a human because of having been born Palestinian, the inner turmoil of deciding between emigration to the west in search of a better material life versus staying in the squalor of Gaza to stay true to the people who need you there.

http://www.amazon.com/Men-Sun-Other-Palestinian-Stories/dp/0894108573/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265974999&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Palestines-Children-Returning-Haifa-Stories/dp/0894108905/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265974999&sr=8-2

(Incidentally, “Return to Haifa” was one of the first full – admittedly short – novels I ever read in Arabic)

*Emile Habiby’s “Pessoptimist” or “The Secret Life of Said”.  Ghassan Kanafani wrote from the exile’s perspective, Emile Habiby wrote from the perspective of those few Palestinians who survived the ethnic cleansing to live on in what became Israel.  He writes in a satirical format about his now famous character Said who simply never can quite understand what’s going on around him, sometimes cooperating with the Israeli authorities, sometimes becoming an accidental Palestinian hero, but always stuck in a confused limbo, and always in his naïveté noticing the way things really are.  This has been made into a popular Arabic play as well, and was translated and widely read in Hebrew over the years.  Habiby embodies the plight and struggles of the “48 Arabs” as they call themselves as few others have managed to do, and does so with a wry, bitter humor that is hard not to enjoy.  Habiby has somehow managed to gain the respect of Hebrew and Arabic reading audiences and definitely mine.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_encoding=UTF8&sort=relevancerank&search-alias=books&field-author=Emile%20Habiby

*The comic genius of Naji al-Ali and Handhala.  Palestine’s national cartoonist, discovered by Ghassan Kanafani who saw his work while visiting Ain al-Hilweh refugee camp and first published in the magazine “Freedom” in Lebanon in 1961.  He subsequently moved to Kuwait in 1963 and his character Handhala appeared in 1969.  In 1973 Handhala turned his back on his viewers, permanently frozen at 10 years of age (the age Naji was when his family was ethnically cleansed) and refusing to turn his face back to the world until he returned home.  Naji al-Ali was assassinated by an unknown hand in London in 1987, some have pointed to Yasser Arafat as a potential culprit, but Handhala has gained immortal status in Palestinian and Arab eyes as the embodiment of Palestinians’ hopes and pains.  Go through the cartoons on the website (feel free to email me if you want translations).

http://www.najialali.com/

*Joe Sacco’s “Palestine”.  I’m going to be lazy here and simply quote the Amazon product description because I think it encapsulates the book better than I can (other than to say, this is an excellent book for understanding life on the ground in the Occupied Territories if you can’t actually be there — although things have gotten much worse since this was written based on experiences almost 20 years ago now): “Based on several months of research and an extended visit to the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the early 1990s (where he conducted over 100 interviews with Palestinians and Jews), Palestine was the first major comics work of political and historical nonfiction by Sacco, who has often been called the first comic book journalist.  Sacco’s insightful reportage takes place at the front lines, where busy marketplaces are spoiled by shootings and tear gas, soldiers beat civilians with reckless abandon, and roadblocks go up before reporters can leave. Sacco interviewed and encountered prisoners, refugees, protesters, wounded children, farmers who had lost their land, and families who had been torn apart by the Palestinian conflict.  In 1996, the Before Columbus Foundation awarded Palestine the seventeenth annual American Book Award, stating that the author should be recognized for his “outstanding contribution to American literature,” while his publisher, Fantagraphics, is “to be honored for their commitment to quality and their willingness to take risks that accompany publishing outstanding books and authors that may not prove ‘cost-effective’ in the short run.”"  This brief review is also a good summation of the book: http://mobookblog.blogspot.com/2007/04/palestine-by-joe-sacco.html

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Joe-Sacco/dp/156097432X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265976394&sr=1-1

LINKS 2: THE HISTORY SEEN FROM THE OTHER SIDE

*Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. One simply cannot properly understand what drives the conflict today without understanding what happened in 1948.  Israeli historian Ilan Pappe digs into the Israeli archives, press accounts of the era, international organizations accounts, British colonial records, and a few primary and secondary Arabic sources including survivor’s stories (not nearly enough, but in any case the Israeli and international accounts prove more than sufficient to make the key points anyhow) from the fateful years of 1948 and 1949.  What emerges is an entirely different picture than the Zionist narrative and almost perfectly in line with what Palestinians have said for over 60 years now actually happened.  The title of the book is clear enough in stating what happened, and it comes straight from the records kept by men like Ben Gurion himself in addition to countless eyewitnesses.

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-Cleansing-Palestine-Ilan-Pappe/dp/1851685553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265976754&sr=8-1

*Walid Khalidi’s “All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948″. This is primarily a reference work, but it’s an easy one to spend time skimming through as it has lots of pictures.  Khalidi is one of the foremost scholars of Palestine up to it’s destruction by the Zionists in 1948 and meticulously goes through the over 400 villages they ethnically cleansed in 48/49.  Pictures of the remaining ruins, descriptions of who lived there and population statistics, when the villages were founded, land ownership, houses of worship, current status of the land and properties, how the actual acts of ethnic cleansing were carried out, etc.  You may have visited Israel and noticed old ruined houses or fallow farmland or agricultural terraces in lots of places.  Israelis act like they’re not there or “ancient” remnants to have biblical ponderings over.  The truth is much darker, these are ghost towns that were inhabited just a few decades ago and whose residents still live often just a few miles away and want nothing more than to just go home, fix and rebuild, and live in peace again in the places they are from.

http://www.amazon.com/All-That-Remains-Palestinian-Depopulated/dp/0887283063/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265976717&sr=1-1

*Palestine Remembered: http://www.palestineremembered.com/

Think of it almost as an online version of what Walid Khalidi has tried to do, archiving records of what Palestine was and is today.  Each district, city, and village is catalogued, and (one of the best parts) personal stories from life in those areas and where its refugees are today are often found.  Unfortunately one of the best parts of the site – oral history videos of the survivors of the 1948 ethnic cleansing – only has Arabic audio, though hopefully they’ll be able to find the resources to translate and subtitle eventually.  The site is a great resource and along with Khalidi’s seminal work reminds the world what the Palestinians always knew was a Zionist myth: the land was never empty, Palestinian society was thriving and vibrant until it was violently burned down to its foundations in 1948/9.

*Kathleen Christison’s “Perceptions of Palestine”. I’m going to crib another book review that does the job better than me from http://mobookblog.blogspot.com/2006/08/perceptions-of-palestine-their.html “Former CIA analyst Kathleen Christison looks at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from an often ignored but vital angle: how the conflict is viewed by US policymakers. Starting in the late 19th century and going US administration by US administration, she examines how Washington’s policies have been a critical factor in the development of the conflict. In effect, she lays out how this is not a binary Israeli-Palestinian problem, but in fact a triangle involving the Palestinians, Israelis, and Americans. A century of deep sympathy for the Israeli perspective, but near constant ignoring and denigration of the Palestinian viewpoint in Washington has helped to fuel rather than calm the conflict in the Holy Land. For American readers who wonder why the United States often gets so much blame in the Arab world for what happens to the Palestinians, this book is a clear-eyed explanation of the issue.”

http://www.amazon.com/Perceptions-Palestine-Influence-Updated-Afterword/dp/0520217187/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265980633&sr=1-1

LINKS 3: SOURCES FOR FOLLOWING CURRENT EVENTS FROM THE PALESTINIAN & NON-ZIONIST VIEW

*The Electronic Intifada http://electronicintifada.net/.

Founded by Ali Abunimah, a Chicagoan of Palestinian refugee descent, the site has become probably the foremost representative of the Palestinian viewpoint in English.  Gathering not just excellent writers and op-eds, but on-the-ground human stories from throughout the Palestinian world, Palestinian culture, top-notch analysis of current events, advocacy of a single-state solution with equality for Jews and Arabs and the right of return for every Palestinian, equal-opportunity criticism of Arab rulers alongside Zionists, extensive coverage of the growing international BDS (Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions) and Right of Return movements, and in general a great pulse for the views many Palestinians have of events as they unfold.

*Ma’an News Agency http://www.maannews.net/eng/Default.aspx.

The leading independent Palestinian news agency (i.e., not in the pockets of Fatah, Hamas, or Israel — or at least one hopes so, their reporting as I have seen it would back up their independence).  They publish in English, Arabic, and Hebrew (though their Hebrew site seems to be undergoing a redesign at present).  You’ll see all sorts of news here you’d never see reported in the American press.  Follow it even casually and you’ll quickly start to understand how completely misleading the American and Israeli media are about actual events on the ground.

*Zochrot: http://www.zochrot.org/index.php?lang=english

One of the very few Israeli groups actively working to get Zionists to realize what they did to the Palestinians in 1948/9 and in very practical ways.  If you ever visit Israel, you should definitely look these people up and see if you can join one of their walking tours of destroyed Palestinian villages where they often bring survivors back to talk about life in the villages, put up signs marking where destroyed churches/mosques/schools/municipal buildings/homes/etc. once were, and often bump into the present Israeli squatters who frequently turn very irate for having these facts pointed out to them.  Zochrot’s goal is the same as mine: a single state where all are treated equally, where the wrongs of the past are acknowledged, the right of return implemented, and a new system of legal equality established.  The difference is, they’re on the ground, being told they are traitors by many in their own society, but pressing bravely forward anyways with a wide variety of educational activities.  Worth checking their site from time to time to see what they’re up to.

*The Angry Arab News Service / وكالة أنباء العربي الغاضب http://angryarab.blogspot.com/

You probably need to have a similar acidic sense of humor as I do (which I blame on serving a mission in London and at least one BYU professor’s influence on me who shall go un-named), and you definitely need to go with UC Stanislaus Professor As’ad Abukhalil’s many many quirks, but the man has become a blogging cult phenomenon for good reason.  He focuses his blogging heavily on Palestinian issues and usually just does short links (many every day) with sharp comments, but he occasionally goes into longer (non-paragraphed) critiques and analyses of different topics related to Palestine and broader issues of the Arab world.  He can be hard to follow at first, and his views (he’s a hardcore leftist atheist) may often be ones you disagree with, but follow him on an even semi-regular basis and you will learn incredible amounts about Palestine and the Arab world.  What makes him so valuable among other things is the way he is one of the few public academic figures who fully straddles the Arab and English speaking worlds (and I believe his French isn’t bad either, though I don’t think he really writes much in French).  His weekly column in Lebanon’s leading paper al-Akhbar is eagerly read (and far less flippant than his blog but no less biting and to the point) by many throughout the Arab world, and he manages to regularly follow and comment on sources on both sides of the linguistic divide.  With his growing following he has also gained a wide network of contacts who frequently send him unique information.  And if your sense of humor is even as vaguely ironic as his, the man’s a riot.  He’s not Palestinian, but is frequently mistaken for one by friends and enemies and takes it as a badge of honor.

*****

I could go on for a lot longer and undoubtedly have already put many of you to sleep.  But if you have a genuine interest in the topic of Palestine/Israel – as most Mormons inherently even if only tangentially do – I’d ask you to bookmark the references I’ve given, and go them when your questions come up.  If you’re really into digging deeper, feel free to drop me an email, I’m always happy to point people to more resources.  The issues surrounding Palestine are such that one must wade through the extraordinarily complex to discover at the end there’s an amazingly simple set of guiding principles behind it all.  In a Gospel sense, my belief is that the Zionist violation of the basic commandments of “thou shalt not steal” and “thou shalt not covet” are the root cause of the conflict, that the conflict is inherently modern and not ancient, and that the solution is really quite straightforward: civic equality for all in a manner similar to that which I believe the Lord inspired as a principle in the US Constitution and many other civic-based democracies around the world.

You may not agree with me on those points, but you’re a Mormon, you know if you knew any Palestinians personally you’d feel an overwhelming urge to bring them a plate of cookies and listen to their stories if they broke down in tears in front of you.  So even though you may not be able to meet them in person, when the topic comes up, tap that Mormon urge to empathize and at least listen to what the other side is saying, I hope I’ve given you a few useful pointers for doing so.

Sod, seed, and salvation — it’s how I like to describe the Abrahamic Covenant. There were three promises in the covenant. The first was a land promise, where the Lord gave Abraham and his descendants the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession. The second was the promise of a great and numerous posterity. And the third was the blessing of the everlasting Gospel: the priesthood and the promise of exaltation, to come to the world through Abraham’s lineage. (see Genesis 17)  But just look at how often the covenant was renewed!

• Several times with Abraham in Genesis 12, Genesis 15, Genesis 17
• With Isaac in Genesis 26
• With Jacob in Genesis 28
• With Joseph in Genesis 49

Not only that, but you may be surprised to learn that this covenant consisting of a land promise, a posterity promise, and a gospel of salvation promise was also given to

• Moses and the children of Israel in Exodus 6
• David in 2 Samuel 7

and, though we call it the Abrahamic Covenant, the same covenant was made even earlier, with

• Adam in Genesis 3
• Enoch and Noah in Genesis 9, Gen 9:21-25 JST

Finally, if you’ve read this week’s Sunday School lesson, you’ll know that the Abrahamic Covenant is made with faithful members of the Church today, as promised in D&C 132.

But when speaking of the Abrahamic Covenant, we might well consider the claim of Abraham’s firstborn son, Ishmael, his alleged descendants, and the ongoing conflict over the land of Canaan. I think it is interesting that the claims of both Palestinians and Israelis can be distilled into sod, seed, and salvation claims. Before you jump to a conclusion about how the argument over Palestine/Israel should be solved, let’s look at these with an open mind.

Sod: The Land Claim

Jewish claims to the land of Israel are based on the fact that this was the historical site and native site of the Jewish kingdom of Israel. There were always large communities of Jews in Israel, and the Jewish people have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years. Palestinian Arabs’ claims to the land are also based on continuous residence in the country for hundreds of years. The land was originally “Arab” land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews, they say.  Who’s right?  Let’s see: 

§ It was the British who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel’s declaration of independence in 1948.

§ But the territory was Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917.

§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. In 1250 they took Palestine over from:

§ The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:

§ The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:

§ The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:

§ The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:

§ The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from

§ The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:

§ The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn’t conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:

§ The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:

§ The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:

§ The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:

§ The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:

§ The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:

§ The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites. (from Lawrence Auster)

This brings us to our second point. The Hebrew Torah clearly shows that the Jews seized the land from the Canaanites. Can we go back into history and discover who the descendants of these ancient native peoples are?

Seed: The Descent Claim

Ibrahim Alloush describes the descent claim of the Palestinians as follows:

“The Arab identity of Palestine emanates not from the Islamic conquest, but with the Canaanites who came into Palestine from the shores of the Arabian Peninsula around 2500 BC, and who had sovereignty over the land until about 1000 BC. Hence Palestine was called the Land of Canaanites, until the Philistines came from the island of Crete and intermarried with the Canaanites to melt peacefully into them leaving only the name behind: Palestine. The ancient Hebrews were indeed part of the peoples of the region but they came into Palestine (the Land of the Canaanites) as invaders.”

Those making this claim point out that descendants of the Canaanites/Philistines (ancient Arabs) have maintained a continuous presence in the land throughout history. Others say that the archaeological evidence disproves this. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. Prior to 1964 there was no “Palestinian” people and no “Palestinian” claim to Palestine; prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name “Palestinian” referred to the Jews of Palestine.

Meanwhile, the Jews have their own problems proving literal descent. For example, Shlomo Sand insists that Diaspora Jews descend from converts and have no ethnic link to ancient Israel. In addition, human rights groups make the point that no other indigenous or aboriginal peoples on the planet are granted the same consideration as the Jews. But there is one other consideration being used to make a claim for the land.

Salvation: The Religious Claim

According to the Torah, Eretz Yisrael was promised to the Abraham and his descendants. Muslims believe that since Abraham’s son Ishmael is the forefather of the Arabs, then God’s promise of the land to the children of Abraham includes Arabs as well. The prophet Muhammed passed through Jerusalem on his first journey to heaven, and all of the land of Israel is designated as Islamic “Waqf” which implies it must be governed by Muslims.

Israelis insist that the covenant was renewed with Abraham’s son Isaac and the inheritance was passed through his line to the Jews. They made Jerusalem a holy city over three thousand years ago have remained steadfast to it. They pray in its direction, mention its name constantly in prayers, close the Passover service with the wistful statement “Next year in Jerusalem,” and recall the city in the blessing at the end of each meal. The destruction of the Temple is still an event commemorated by a special day of mourning, houses left partially unfinished, a woman’s makeup or jewelry left incomplete, a glass smashed during the wedding ceremony. Christians identify with the Jews’ love of Israel in many ways. The plaintive sound of Psalm 137 is reinforced in many of our hymns: “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.” This sympathy has been apparent in modern reactions to the conflict over Israel.

In attempting to keep this post from being unwieldy, I am afraid that I have greatly simplified the issues. Please feel free to make additional points about these claims in the comments. However, what I am most interested in discussing is the great support the Christian world has given to the Jews’ political return to Israel in modern times. (Zionism was actually opposed by Orthodox Jews at first — they regarded Zionism as a violation of God’s will.) But the international community granted political sovereignty in Palestine to the Jewish people in 1947. Do you think there is a solution to this conflict? Who has the better claim? Should a world-wide coalition define boundaries, or should we let the two nations duke it out on their own?

Does your religious worldview and your Christian understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant affect your position on the issue?

Shortly before the Second World War, the United States instituted the draft system. With the deemphasis on the doctrine of gathering to Utah, and the advent of World War II, the Church had to face some tough issues. For the first time we were confronted with the problem of having significant numbers of faithful Latter-day Saints on both sides of a military conflict. In the April Conference of 1942, an official statement was made by the First Presidency that although the gospel of Christ is a gospel of love, every citizen has an obligation to come to the defense of their country when a call to arms is made.

“The state is responsible for the civil control of its citizens or subjects, for their political welfare, and for the carrying forward of political policies, domestic and foreign, of the body politic. For these policies, their success or failure, the state is alone responsible, and it must carry their burdens. All these matters involve and directly affect Church members because they are part of the body politic, and members must give allegiance to their sovereign and render it loyal service when called thereto. But the Church itself, as such, has no responsibility for these policies, as to which it has no means of doing more than urging its members fully to render that loyalty to their country and to free institutions which the loftiest patriotism calls for.” (First Presidency Message, Conference Report, April 1942, pp. 88-97)

This statement is included in full on the Church’s website as representative of our public policy. Perhaps the preeminence in the Book of Mormon on war in the defense of one’s freedom influenced the decision to support government in waging war.  Other Christian religions, notably the Jehovah’s Witnesses, encountered the same quandary and formulated quite different policies. At the time of World War I, it was recommended that Witnesses serve in the army only if compelled, and then to request positions in a non-combative role such as medical service.  However, by the time of the Second World War, they refused to assist the war effort in any way, to salute the flag, and even to vote.

Since the 1942 CR statement was made, there has been a general reluctance to speak against any military action taken by countries wherein dwell large numbers of Latter-day Saints, especially the United States.  During the Vietnam War, Mormons were urged not to be conscientious objectors, but to enter the military and serve their country.  Church statements at the time emphasized the propriety of war in defense of our families, religion and country.  In the several wars which have ensued, LDS members in the military are urged to see themselves as defending not just their own nation but also the freedom of religion that it ensures for the Church.  I don’t know if it is just my personal experience, but I rarely hear talks or prayers in the Church urging peaceful solutions to national conflict.  Instead I hear prayers from the ward level to temple prayer circles where the Lord is asked to bless our members who are serving in the military.  There is a subtle acceptance of military action inherent in these types of prayers which grates on me.

I think it will be very interesting if Mormon rhetoric concerning participation in military efforts will begin to soften now that the President of the United States is more committed to exploring greater options toward pacifism than past administrations have done.  Lately President Obama has been involved in a global nonproliferation regime concerning nuclear weaponry.  As part of his vision for a world without nuclear weapons, he drafted a proposal which was unanimously accepted at a U.N. Security Council meeting on September 24.

This is a complicated issue, which may involve even more conflict, given that Iran may resist the resolution.  However, I have great hopes for the way this is heading.  I also see many younger Latter-day Saints who are committed to the issue of pacifism.  Since military service is currently voluntary, young men and women do not feel undue pressure from the Church to serve their country in this manner, as they have in the past.  Thus, an LDS generation is growing up with more of an opportunity to formulate their own responses to a call to military service amid a political climate which is more conducive to pacifism than ever before.

Will we soon see the cessation of hawkish patriotism in Sunday School lessons and Church talks and prayers?  Will more LDS leaders arise in the traditon of J. Reuben Clark, who affirmed: “Moral force is far more potent than physical force in international relations. I believe that America should again turn to the promotion of peaceful adjustment of international disputes?”  Or will civil and religious duties continue to be cited as justification for participation in military conflict?

I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  (This is a shorter version–more details are found here.)  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting federal anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  I’ll be taking my quotes from 2 books: Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington.

It was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln that the first federal anti-polygamy legislation passed Congress, but Lincoln wanted to ignore the issue.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery.  In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)

banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.^[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in the Utah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.^[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

The footnote at Wikipedia is especially interesting.  Quoting from the book, Firmage, Edwin Brown; Mangrum, Richard Collin (2001), Zion in the courts, University of Illinois Press, p. 139, ISBN 0252069803, http://books.google.com/books?id=9AimifP2a-4C,

“Having signed the Morrill Act, Abraham Lincoln reportedly compared the Mormon Church to a log he had encountered as a farmer that was ‘too hard to split, too wet to burn and too heavy to move, so we plow around it. That’s what I intend to do with the Mormons. You go back and tell Brigham Young that if he will let me alone, I will let him alone.’”

If the church had capitulated at this point, I can understand critics who say that the church traded polygamy for statehood.  The church had been applying for statehood for 40 years when it finally happened, and were always ignored by Congress.  In fact, the state of Utah is less than half the size of the original territory of Deseret.  Congress split the Deseret Territory, and created the territory of Nevada.  Congress continued to take away slices of Utah and added them to Nevada in 1861, 1864, and 1866.  Check out this map.  Nevada even became a state before Utah, even though it was created after Utah.

Utah continued to practice polygamy in defiance of federal law for another 20 years following the Morrill Act.  Congress made several attempts to handle “The Mormon Question”.  Leonard Arrington (former church historian) documents some of these laws on page 357 from his book called Great Basin Kingdom.  (Much more detail is in the book.)

• The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862 – passed.
• The Wade Act of 1866- failed to pass.  It would have prohibited church officers from solemnizing marriages, would have taxed the church, taken over the Nauvoo Legion, and sent federal officials to take over all government responsibilities, among other things.
• The Cullom Bill of 1869-70 – passed House but failed Senate.  Plural wives would have been deprived of immunity as witnesses involving their husband.  It would have authorized the President to send army of 25,000 to Utah, and would confiscate all property of any Mormon.
• The Ashley Bill of 1869 – failed to pass.   Here’s an exact quote:  “The bill provided for “the dismemberment” of Utah by transferring large slices of it to Nevada, Wyoming, and Colorado.”
  
• The Poland Act of 1874 – passed.  Gave federal attorney general and federal jurisdiction  over criminal, civil and chancery (equity) cases in Utah.
• The Edmunds Act of 1882 – passed.  Quoting from page 358, the act

“put teeth” in the 1862 law and attempted to eliminate the Mormon Church as a power in Utah by vesting the political machinery of the territory in federal non-Mormon appointive officers.  Specifically, the Edmunds Act provided heavy penalties for the practice of polygamy: defined cohabitation with a polygamous wife as a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $300, by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both; declared all persons guilty of polygamy or cohabitation incompetent for jury service; and disfranchised and declared ineligible for public office all persons guilty of polygamy or unlawful cohabitation…all elective offices were declared vacant…persons professing belief in polygamy or cohabitation as a religious principle, whether or not proved guilty of their practice, were ineligible to vote and to hold public office…in the first year of its existence it had excluded some 12,000 men and women from registration and voting.

when, on March 3, 1885, the Supreme Court denied  Clawson’s appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the law, territorial officials commenced the intensive prosecution of Mormon leaders in Utah and elsewhere known as “The Raid.”

Polygamous marriage being difficult to establish in the courts, the most common charge against the Mormons what of unlawful cohabitation, punishable by a $300 fine or six months in jail, or both.

…

There were 1,004 convictions for unlawful cohabitation under the Edmunds Act between 1884 and 1893, and another 31 for polygamy, but these hardly measure the magnitude of the effect of the Act upon Mormon society.  The period from 1885 to 1890 was marked by intensive “polyg hunts” for “cohabs.”  Officials of the church made a grave decision to fight each and every charge under the law.  Having taken sacred covenants to remain true to their wives “for time and all eternity,” they regarded it as unthinkable that they should desert these women in order to avoid punishment provided in the law of Babylon.  Accordingly, when it became clear early in 1885 that rigorous enforcement and interpretation of the law were to be held constitutional, church leaders–nearly all of whom had one or more plural wives–went “underground.”

…page 360

With almost all leaders of Latter-day Saint communities in prison or in hiding, business establishments were abandoned, or were kept in operation by inexperienced wives and children.  The ownership of the co-operatives drifted into the hands of a few individuals and eventually were converted into private enterprises.  Those United Orders which had survived until this period were discontinued.  There were no further meetings of Zion’s Central Board of Trade.  Almost every business history, in short, shows stagnation; almost every family history records widespread suffering and misery.  Above all, the church, as prime stimulator, financier, and regulator of the Mormon economy, was forced to withdraw from participation in most phases of activity.  The Raid, in other words, was a period of crippled group activity of every type, of decline in cooperative trade and industry–a period when, above all, church economic support was essential but not forthcoming–a period when planning would have saved much, but when planners dared not plan.

A more despairing situation than theirs, at that hour, has never been faced by an American community. Practically every Mormon man of any distinction was in prison, or had just served his term, or had escaped into exile.  Hundreds of Mormon women had left their homes and their children to flee from the officers of the law; many had been behind prison bars for refusing to answer the questions put to them in court; more were concealed, like outlaws, in the houses of friends…Old men were coming out of prison, broken in health.

The Edmunds-Tucker Act

Nevertheless, the Edmunds Law was unable to force a change in the attitude of Latter-day Saint authorities. It was an unwilling cross, but one which the create majority of members seemed prepared to bear rather than yield on what they regarded a religious principle.  Congress therefore moved almost immediately to increase the pressure, and after considering several proposals during a number of sessions, adopted, on February 19, 1887, an amendment to the 1862 law known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act.  Enacted into law without the signature of President Grover Cleveland, this “Anti-Polygamy Act,” as it was entitled, amended the 1862 law to provide as follows:

1.  That the Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, insofar as it had, or pretended to have, any legal existence, was dissolved.  The United States Attorney General was directed to instituted proceedings to accomplish dissolution.

2.  That the Attorney General institute proceedings to forfeit and escheat all property, both real and personal, of the dissolved church corporation held in violation of the 1862 limitation of $50,000, which was reaffirmed.  The property was to be disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior and the proceeds applied to the use and benefit of the district schools of Utah.

The books continues on, with 3 more items, including the abolition of women suffrage.  (Utah was the first or second state to allow women to vote–quite progressive, eh?)  Continuing from page 361,

The Edmunds-Tucker Act was a direct bid to destroy the temporal power of the Mormon Church.  Congressional leaders reasoned that the church would have to yield on the principle of plural marriage or suffer destruction as an organization of power and influence.  Church leaders did not see the matter in this light, however.  They believed (and were supported in this belief by several constitutional lawyers of national reputation) that several features of the Edmunds-Tucker Act were unconstitutional.  They further declared that they could not revoke the principle of polygamy:  Only God could do that; and, if He so decided, He would do so by direct revelation to the church–not by prohibitory national legislation.

The book details how many properties, including the Tithing Office, were placed or sold into private church members and/or stake hands, and hidden as much as possible.  A series of legal battles ensued as federal officials tried to track down church assets.  However, the government did uncover many of these transactions, and took control of the assets.  Arrington goes into great detail about many of these trials.  A trustee was appointed, and he charged enormous fees to maintain records of these properties.  He was removed later, but many of the church properties were squandered as payment for his services.

In January 1889, the church challenged the constitutionality of the confiscated properties, but lost again in the Supreme Court.  From page 375, the majority Supreme Court opinion read,

“Under these circumstances we have no doubt of the power of Congress to do as it did.”

However, the opinion was not unanimous.  Chief Justice Fuller and associate justices Field and Lamar

wrote a short but vigorous dissent based on the States’ Rights doctrine which had reached its farthest in the Dred Scott decision.  Wrote the Chief Justice:

In my opinion, Congress is restrained, nor merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power, express or implied in that instrument….  If this property was accumulated for purposes declared illegal, that does not justify its arbitrary disposition by judicial legislation.  In my judgment, its diversion under this Act of Congress is in contravention of specific limitations in the Constitution; unauthorized, expressly or by implication, by any of its provisions; and in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States, as exercised by the agents of the people of this Republic, is delegated and not inherent.

From page 377,

The second effect of the Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the Edmunds-Tucker Act was the church “Manifesto” proclaiming an end to the performance of plural marriage.

The Supreme Court decision on May 19, 1890 was nearly the final blow.  David Bigler, author of Forgotten Kingdom page 354 outlines an even more ominous problem.

What made this ruling truly ominous was the appointment two months later of Henry W. Lawrence, a leader of the Godbeite schism, as receiver of church property.  He replaced the moderate former U.S. marshal Frank H. Dyer, who had earlier agreed to keep hands off the church’s temples under the provision of the law that exempted buildings used exclusively for “the worship of God.”  The Utah Supreme Court had approved this determination.  Now Lawrence and U.S. attorney Charles Varian, reappointed in 1889 by President Harrison, made it known they intended to overturn the agreement on the ground that temples in Logan, St. George, and Manti did not qualify for exemption since they were not places of public worship.  If upheld, this move would lead to confiscation of the church’s holiest places, where its most sacred ordinances were performed, including marriages.

Arrington writes in Great Basin Kingdom on page 355 that Church president Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on Sept 25, 1890,

“I have arrived at a point in the history of my life as the president of the Church…where I am under the necessity of acting for the temporal salvation of the church.”  On that date, just four months after the fateful decision of the Supreme Court, President Woodruff issued the “Official Declaration” which proclaimed the end of polygamy among the Mormons:

Inasamuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby declare my intention to submit to those laws, and to use my influence with the members of the Church over which I preside to have them do likewise.

In the October 6 session of the general conference of the church, the congregation “unanimously sustained” this declaration as “authoritative and binding.”  Polygamy no longer had official sanction.

Forgotten Kingdom adds additional detail here.  From page 356,

While many treated the manifesto with skepticism, one who took it at face value was the magistrate who had sent more men to prison for violating  the marriage laws than anyone else.  The day after it was sustained, Judge Charles Zane on October 7 said that he would record the church “opposed to polygamy hereafter, unless something happened to change my opinion,” and he began only to fine violators, but not impose prison time.

Arrington, author of Great Basin Kingdom concurs discusses the issue of statehood on page 377,

The Manifesto declaring an end to officially sanctioned plural marriages also enabled the Mormons to achieve the goal of statehood, which had been denied them for over forty years.  Statehood gave them the prospect of getting rid, once and for all, of the unwanted and unfriendly federally appointed governors, judges, marshals, attorneys, and commissioners who had fought against them since 1852.  As part of the “deal” by which this was arranged, church officials are said to have given congressional and administration leaders to understand that they would support a proposition to prohibit forever the practice of polygamy in Utah; that the church would dissolve its Peoples’ Party and divide itself into Republican and Democratic supporters; and that the church would discontinue its alleged fight against Gentile business and relax its own economic efforts….The Raid had finally culminated in the long-sought goal of statehood, but had produced capitulation in many areas of Mormon uniqueness, not the least of which was the decline in the economic power and influence of the church.  The temporal Kingdom, for all practical purposes, was dead–slain by the dragon of Edmunds-Tucker.

So, what do you make of these events?  Did the church wimp out?  Should the church have defended the temples like the Jews did in the days of Nero?  Many Jews died, the temple was taken anyway and hasn’t been rebuilt in 2000 years.

This is going to be a vastly simplified version of events, as I understand them:

The FLDS are a group of people with Mormon restorationist roots who believe in principles espoused early in the history of our movement, such as plural marriage and consecration.  They formed a community with its base in Colorado City, on the Utah/Arizona border in the 1930s.  Their desire to live the Law of Consecration resulted in what became known as the United Effort Plan (UEP), which started as a subsidiary organization of the FLDS church.  Properties and businesses were owned by the UEP and members received trusts to live on and develop.

In 2005, The Attorney General of Utah filed a lawsuit and seized the holdings of the UEP in the FLDS communities of Hildale, Utah; Colorado City, Ariz.; and Bountiful, British Columbia in Canada. It was alleged that Warren Jeffs and other FLDS leaders had mismanaged it, including defaulting on a series of civil lawsuits.  An accountant, Bruce Wisan, was appointed to act as special fiduciary of the trust, with its estimated $100 million in assets.

First of all, I don’t understand the legal process that could seize control of this arrangement when the majority of its members wish to continue their involvement in the United Order.  Judge Denise P. Lindberg has stated in a recent ruling that because the trust is being used illegally, “to promote polygamy,” that distributing the land to the FLDS church is invalid and violates basic trust law.  Fundamentalist supporters make this argument:

“If a trust is declared invalid, shouldn’t it simply be dissolved and the assets revert back to original ownership (or as close to it as possible)? Does the state or any court have the power to absorb private trust assets or give them to other people, based on the fact that the state and/or court do not approve of the beliefs and or practices of the organizers or beneficiaries of said trust?”

Second, Wisan appears very hostile to the aims of the UEP.  Why would this Mormon Stake President be given control over how to manage the assets of several entire communities of people?  It’s been very, very disturbing to read reports of how the trust has been handled since he has become involved.    Perhaps I’m missing something, but of their own free will these people have legally signed their property over to their church.  Now, measures such as the sale of property set aside for a temple, and reforms designed to violate the rights of the FLDS to live their religion are being enacted.  Little notice is being taken of the desires of those who have entered into the trust and whose financial, emotional, and spiritual interests are at stake.

In Lindberg’s ruling, FLDS members and church representatives Willie Jessop, Dan Johnson, Merlin Jessop, Lyle Jeffs and James Oler were prevented from any input in the case involving the United Effort Plan (UEP) Trust.

“It is black letter law that potential beneficiaries of charitable trusts have no right to make claims upon such trusts,” she wrote. “Because the UEP Trust is a charitable trust, the only individuals with legally cognizable interests are the Utah and Arizona Attorneys General as representatives of the community, and the court-designated special fiduciary.”

In this country, we don’t take away an individual’s legal rights because he has had a consensual sexual relationship with a person other than his wife.  If this person prefers to call his relationship a marriage, and connects it with his religious practice, why is there suddenly a concerted effort to deprive him of his rights?

“Principle Voices,” a support group for those involved in fundamentalist Mormon lifestyles, has voiced their opposition to

1) any ruling that deprives polygamists of the right to organize or manage a trust with their own assets.

2) any ruling that declares a trust formed by polygamists as “promoting illegal activities”, “invalid”, un-Constitutional, or “illegal”, simply because the organizers embrace plural marriage.

3) any ruling that deprives the FLDS (or any other polygamists) of the right to access their own assets or their right to self-governance. (By extension, substitute the name of any other group such as the Kingstons or the AUB, etc., in place of FLDS; we oppose any ruling or government action that would deprive any of those communities of their rights.)

4) any ruling or government action that establishes an inequity in the law that distinguishes, and diminishes, the rights of polygamists from the rights of other American citizens.

A group of people sympathetic to these points has gathered to stage a peaceful protest today (Wednesday, July 29), outside the Matheson courthouse in support of these concerns.  Here the court is considering the sale of the several hundred acres of land known as Berry Knoll which has been prophesied as the future site of their temple.   Do you disagree with their points?  Do you feel that the rulings being contemplated in the case of the UEP constitute an inequity in the law?  Do you believe, as I do, that Mormons and other citizens should have an interest in the outcome of these proceedings?

Bercot was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness but left over differences about Biblical interpretation, and subsequently became an Evangelical Christian. However, he had doubts about some Evangelical doctrines as well, such as the idea of eternal security (once saved, always saved), and remained convinced the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief in pacifism was correct.

Based on the fact that the pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the closest in time and place to the Apostles, Bercot reasoned that present-day disputes over scriptural interpretation could similarly be resolved by examining the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers to determine how they interpreted and applied scripture. (These pre-Nicene Church fathers lived anywhere between 50 and 325 A.D.) Bercot’s legal training taught him to seek out the primary sources containing the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, rather than relying on modern treatises that often present sixth or seventh-hand accounts of what the Early Christians supposedly believed and practiced.

At the conclusion of his research, Bercot published a ten-volume collection of the Ante-Nicene Fathers‘ writings, the most comprehensive collection of primary sources available in English. Bercot then compared what he learned about pre-Nicene Christianity to mainstream Evangelical Christianity, formed his own publishing company, and published his summarized findings and analysis in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up.

Mormons might be interested to know that Bercot’s research into the Early Christian Church demonstrates that the LDS Church today shares many of the doctrines of the Early Church, including:

• A concept of salvation that stresses the importance of both faith and obedience. As Bercot puts it: “The early Christians believed that salvation is a gift from God but that God gives His gift to whomever he chooses. And He chooses to give it to those who love and obey him.” (Emphasis in original.) According to Bercot, the mainstream Evangelical interpretation of “saved by grace” actually originated with St. Augustine after the Nicene Creed.
• That a person, once saved, could fall from grace and lose his salvation through disobedience.
• That salvation depends on a person’s correct exercise of his free will, rather than being predestined arbitrarily and irrevocably by God.
• That baptism actually effectuates a remission of sins, rather than simply being a sign of outward commitment.
• That unbaptized infants who died before baptism could still be saved, as well as other good and noble people who died without baptism.
• That Christians should observe the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper weekly.

However, Mormons might also be interested to know that, according to Bercot, the Early Christians held additional beliefs and practices that may be waning or absent from Mormonism:

• Early Christians had no belief resembling the modern “health and wealth” gospel that physical health and safety, or material prosperity, are blessings for righteous living. Rather, the Early Christians lived in material simplicity, striving to have all things in common and giving to the poor to the point of joining others in their poverty.
• Early Christians believed in separating themselves from the world as much as possible, going so far as to abstain from politics and the legal system, refusing to take oaths, and abstaining from the popular amusements of the day.
• Early Christians rejected capital punishment and even refused to assist in prosecuting someone for a capital offense. Similarly, Early Christians rejected war and refused to serve in the military. According to Bercot, the concept of the “just war” did not exist amongst Christians until St. Augustine.
• Many Early Church Fathers taught there was no special doctrinal revelation after the apostles and that everything we need to know about God had been revealed to the apostles by Jesus.

As Real Heretics crept into Christian bookstores, Bercot was surprised to learn that the book was making a huge splash in Anabaptist (Amish/Mennonite) circles. Bercot’s historical validation of several Anabaptist doctrines like pacifism, baptismal regeneration, separation from the world, and a rejection of the Reformation doctrines of sola fide (faith only) and predestination backed up several of their most cherished views. While Bercot was intrigued to learn that his findings greatly overlapped with Anabaptist beliefs, he found no legitimate basis for some Anabaptist beliefs, such as their lack of evangelism and avoidance of modern technology.

Over the next several years, Bercot struggled to find a religious community that embraced all Early Christian beliefs and practices as he understood them. He formed his own short-lived Early Christian Fellowship, but later affiliated with the Anglican Church because it allowed him freedom to form his own society to promote Early Christian beliefs, and because it is one of the older Christian churches that avoids the veneration of icons. However, Bercot eventually left the Anglicans due to their Catholic practice of venerating the Virgin Mary and espousing the “Just War” theory.

Bercot ultimately relocated to Pennsylvania, where he currently resides, and now affiliates with the Mennonites, who have many, but not all, of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that his research discovered.

The Campbellite-Mormon Connection

As I read Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up, I was intrigued to find a non-LDS scholar giving historical support for so many LDS doctrines. Page after page, I kept wondering to myself: When Joseph Smith set out to restore the Early Christian Church, how did this largely uneducated 25-year old get so many things right? As far as I know, Joseph was ignorant of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I couldn’t see how Joseph could have had the time or means to pour over old texts written by Polycarp, Ignatius, Origen, Ireneus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, or any of the other Early Church Fathers. Nor am I aware of Joseph ever having quoted the Early Church Fathers in his sermons or writings.

Moreover, I was struck by the fact that some of the Early Christian beliefs and practices that seem to be waning or absent in Mormonism today, such as the strong emphasis on creating a separate society and having all things in common, were found in Mormonism as originally established by Joseph Smith. The differences between Mormons today and the Early Christians (e.g., Mormons’ abandonment of communal living, strong involvement in political and legal affairs, common approval of capital punishment, military service, and strong allegiance to country) all seem to have resulted from Mormon “mainstreaming” over the past century .

In response to the question of how Joseph Smith got so many things right when he undertook to restore the Early Church, faithful Mormons will likely respond that Smith’s success owes to the fact that he was a true prophet of God who was called to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ. However, Real Heretics presents information that many others have cited to provide another possible explanation. After discussing the Early Church, Bercot discusses the eventual corruption and apostasy of the Church, and the valiant efforts of the Reformers to root out that corruption. Bercot then traces the development of several Restorationist branches of Christianity using language that will ring familiar to Mormons:

Whereas Luther had sought to reform the existing church-state establishment, others concluded that such an establishment was beyond reforming. So they worked to restore primitive Christianity apart from the church-state institution. Since the days of Luther, there have been numerous such movements to restore early Christianity. Real Heretics, p. 149.

Although Bercot does not identify Mormonism as one of those Restorationist movements, he does identify one of Mormonism’s cousins, the Stone-Campbellite Movement, as being one of the more successful Restoration movements:

Another movement to restore primitive Christianity sprung up in America in the early 1800s out of the Presbyterian church. . . . Barton W. Stone, a Presbyterian minister, began a movement in Kentucky to restore apostolic Christianity. Stone’s chief objective was to restore the holy living and separation from the world that had marked early Christianity.

In the 1820s, Stone’s movement merged with a separate movement begun by Thomas and Alexander Campbell, who were also seeking to restore primitive Christianity. One of Alexander Campbell’s primary objectives was to achieve unity among all Christians, forsaking all man-made creeds and traditions and returning to the forms, structures, and doctrines of the apostolic church. Real Heretics, p. 151.

Both Stone and the Campbells published journals urging a Restoration of the Early Church in the early 1800’s (The Christian Baptist, Millennial Harbinger, and The Christian Messenger).

Those familiar with Mormon history will recognize the names of Thomas and Alexander Campbell as the founders of the “Campbellite” Restoration movement that Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt, Edward Partridge, Isaac Morley, and at one point a majority of all Mormons belonged to before converting to Mormonism. When Sidney Ridgon read the Book of Mormon in 1830 while he was a Campbellite preacher, he converted to Mormonism as did many other Campbellites.  This enormous influx of former Campbellites into Mormonism doubled the Church’s membership in three weeks and resulted in Joseph Smith relocating the Saints’ gathering place by joining the former Campbellite converts in Kirtland, Ohio.

Why was Mormonism so appealing to Campbellites?  Starting in 1823, Campbell’s publication The Christian Baptist advocated an abandonment of all creeds and sects that divided Christendom and a restoration of a unified Church in which the “original gospel and order of things” are present.  (Source.) Alexander Campbell explained the Campbellites’ “distinguishing views and practices” as follows:

They regard all the sects and parties of the Christian world as having, in greater or less degrees, departed from the simplicity of faith and manners of the first Christians, and as forming what the apostle Paul calls “the apostasy.” . .  .

They look for unity of spirit and the bonds of peace in the practical acknowledgment of one faith, one Lord, one immersion, one hope, one body, one Spirit, one God and Father of all; not in unity of opinions, nor in unity of forms, ceremonies, or modes of worship. . . .  

Thus while they proclaim faith and repentance, or faith and a change of heart, as preparatory to immersion, remission, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, they say to all penitents, or all those who believe and repent of their sins, as Peter said to the first audience addressed after the Holy Spirit was bestowed after the glorification of Jesus, “Be immersed every one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

The immersed believers are congregated into societies according to their propinquity to each other, and taught to meet the first day of every week in honor and commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus, and to break the loaf which commemorates the death of the Son of God, to read and hear the living oracles, to teach and admonish one another, to unite in all prayer and praise, to contribute to the necessities of saints, and to perfect holiness in the fear of the Lord.

Every congregation chooses its own overseers and deacons, who preside over and administer the affairs of the congregations; and every church, either from itself or in co-operation with others, sends out, as opportunity offers, one or more evangelists, or proclaimers of the word, to preach the word and to immerse those who believe, to gather congregations, and to extend the knowledge of salvation where it is necessary, as far as their means extend.  (Source.)

Although the Campbellites and Mormons held many other beliefs in common, the above provides a sampling of the types of similarities that have presented religion historians with a fascinating chicken-or-the-egg question:  did Joseph Smith’s teachings resemble the Early Church’s “original gospel and order of things” because Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God whose authentic revelations enabled him to restore the true Church of Jesus Christ, or because contemporary Restorationists like Alexander Campbell first identified correct Early Christian beliefs and practices that were later adopted by Joseph Smith? In other words, did God use the broader Restoration movement of the American frontier as an “Elias” that prepared Rigdon and eventually thousands of souls to embrace the true Church of Jesus Christ restored later by Joseph Smith, or was Joseph Smith’s success in duplicating many Early Christian beliefs and practices the result of his simply mimicking the beliefs and practices of contemporary Restorationist preachers who got it right first?  Because Campbellite converts to Mormonism such as Parley Pratt reported that they were converted Mormonism because they were inspired by the truthfulness of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon (Source), it seems the answer to that question depends on whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic record compiled by Early Christians living on the American continent, or is a fabrication cobbled together by Smith and possibly others inspired by the Restorationist ethos that pervaded the American frontier when it was published.  (We know where Alexander Campbell stood on that question: in 1831 he denounced the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it all-too-coincidentally addressed “every error and every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years.”)  (Alexander Campbell, “The Mormonites,”  Millenial Harbinger 2, (January 1831): 93.)

Regardless of the answer, Will the Real Heretics Stand Up suggests that the modern Christian denominations that most resemble the pre-Nicene Church’s beliefs and practices (i.e., Anabaptists and offspring of Restorationist movements) are relatively obscure groups that are popularly regarded as being on the outskirts (or on the outside) of Christianity today.

[Pictured below, left to right: Alexander Campbell, Sidney Rigdon, and Joseph Smith.]

There is no such thing as being normal

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

Apparently, marriage is hard work

Gayby Boomers? Silly name, interesting phenomenon

An explanation for Utah bankruptcies

I don’t think PETA would approve of this

Aren’t you glad we have calculaors?

Even Orson Scott Card realizes that Mormonism is a culture

Another reason to have more kids – Placenta Helper

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

New Dehli: New gay rights in a deeply conservative country

This is an adaptation of a post my good friend Ron wrote. He is Catholic, so with his consent I have modified some of it to fit the audience here, as well as added some of my own thoughts. It was inspired by some of his encounters with a “rather nasty Fundamentalist Christian” who was “more interested in winning an argument, rather than learning.” These points, however, may be applied to anyone who wants to prove other people wrong rather than understand or learn.

“After spending years debating James White, I have noticed common tactics employed by people who want to win at any cost rather than seek a mutual understanding of the facts or even work toward a mutual disagreement. Ann Coulter is a good example of a political satirist who engages in this sort of rhetoric. Let’s take a close look, shall we?”

1. Make an outrageous claim. It doesn’t matter if it’s out of Mormon Doctrine, or if you take a comment out of context, or if the side you’re on is just as guilty as those you are making accusations against. The goal is not to be fair minded or even accurate; all you need to be concerned with is igniting an emotional response from the other person. Remember, you are always right and your opponent is always wrong; your job is simply to supply enough rope for your opponent to hang himself. Manipulative (e.g. “Don’t you think _____?”) and leading questions are also really effective here.

2. Rely on mocking or sarcasm to ignite passion. If you are of a conservative ilk, rely on a mocking or morally superior tone to deliver your message (Ann Coulter). If you are liberal use a lot of sarcastic humor to exalt yourself above your opponent’s attempts at presenting himself/herself as morally superior (Al Franken).

3. Do not give an inch. If your opponent happens to stumble upon a true statement, ignore, deny, or reframe the conversation! In all cases, NEVER concede even a minor point to your opponent. Also, be sure to ignore any sincere questions by your opponent. In the very least do not answer them directly. Again, the point is not to help the other person understand you, but to prove they are wrong.

4. Make Your opponent work harder. Always remember that you are right, regardless of the facts presented, and you will eventually prove it by weathering any storm that may be created due to the information your opponent happens to give you. Most importantly, put them in a place where they feel like they have to prove you wrong. If they present troubling information to you about your own position simply refuse to acknowledge it. The fact is your opponent is either a brainwashed innocent or at worst, a conniving interloper who has no right to challenge your superior position, and only appears to have the nerve to do so without merit.

5. Do not bother reading posts or listening to response from your opponent. After all, reading your opponent’s posts may ignite emotions within yourself, or take your mind off your primary goal, WINNING! Instead of reading, skim your opponent’s post for statements that can be molded to aid you in your ultimate goal. The best statements are usually the most irrelevant to your opponents point–why re-post something meaningful or relevant? Oh, and make sure you continue to apply the steady drumbeat or either mocking/moral superiority, or sarcastic humor.

6. Stay the course! Or leave! Whatever you do, just don’t engage! Eventually your opponent will either hang himself or simply tire of the interaction; in both cases, you must declare victory immediately. Like any good staring contest it is not the person that presents the best case who wins, but the person who is left standing. If it just keeps going you may want to consider eventually checking out. There are two ways to do this, either just disappear quietly until the next post comes along that you can slam, or make a big announcement about why you are not coming back. Try to make everyone reading it feel bad about your departure, and say self-deprecating stuff like “I guess I’m just not popular here”). Whatever you do, NEVER admit to any good points the other side made in their last comment, and when you come back, make sure it is only to attack again.

How can we avoid this? How can we learn together even when we disagree?

1. Ask sincere, open-ended questions. Look around and you’ll be surprised how little actually happens. Example, “What do you think about _____?” Amazing concept, but so often we end up trying to trip each other. Make sure your questions are not meant to lead the other person down a particular path, or that you don’t have some hidden underlying agenda.

2. If you use sarcasm or a lot of humor, be kind. Even if you don’t like emoticons, make sure others understand your intention, and don’t use it as a weapon. I know many people (myself included) like to use mocking now and then, but we must refrain.

3. Acknowledge (write in your replies) when the other person has a good point. Or, *gasp* when they say something you agree with.

4. Monitor the conversation to make sure it is not one-sided. Is there always one person on the attack and the other constantly on defense, or is it more even-handed?

5. Consider the whole comment. Don’t just pick out stuff to argue with.

6. Apologize when appropriate. Take a break when you need to, but don’t completely check out or make threats when you get upset. Come back and engage. We can all learn from each other.

7. When in doubt, ask Ray what to do. He will have the answer.

Why do you converse with others online? More specifically, why do you engage in commenting back and forth with other people on Mormon Matters? To share your views? To influence others? To learn from others?

What is your method of going about this? Debate? Crafting arguments? Sharing and working towards mutual understanding? What are the pros and cons of the different ways?

[poll id="6"]

Please refrain from turning this into an argument about the nature or morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  This is a poll about a legal decision, and comments should be about the decision.

The Law of Consecration offers a lot of interesting discussion topics and ideas. To me, a political junkie, one of the most interesting concepts tied up in consecration is the idea of equality. The Book of Mormon has some interesting passages regarding equality; I cannot help thinking that they got Joseph thinking about economics and righteousness. Or, the impact of temporal things upon righteousness, anyway. So, when the Lord gives the newly organized Church his Law, equality is a big issue.

Nowhere is this more directly stated than in Section 78, where the Lord tells his people that the time has come,

“[t]hat you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things. For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things; For if you will that I give unto a place in the celestial world you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.” (D&C 78:5-7).

The idea just has the ring of revelation. If we were all equal, think of the problems we could avoid. There would be no poor, at least in the relative sense within the Church. There would be less pride and envy and greed. It would be much easier to avoid materialism if everyone was on an even plane, economically. Equality is a great idea, right?

On the other hand, as Joseph soon learned, voluntary consecration is hard to achieve. As an initial practical matter, there must be a “critical mass” of wealth to sustain the group. But once that is achieved, not everyone will easily overcome their temporal desires. For those who can, it is hard to be equal with someone who is not particularly interested in being equal with you. If you don’t have everyone on board, the whole system is destined for failure.

As Richard Bushman points out in Rough Stone Rolling (p. 183), the system never worked properly. The lack of property to distribute among the poverty-stricken early saints hampered the system’s effectiveness from the start. Joseph struggled on, aided by Edward Partridge and loyal Colesville Saints, who made up a large part of the Mormon population in Zion. In 1833, the Mormon’s expulsion from Jackson County would close down everything. The system’s two year existence was about average for the various communal experiments being undertaken in the period.

So what about consecration for you and me, today?

I have to say, many members of my ward are kind and generous and charitable – - much more so than I. I truly believe that they take their commitment to consecration seriously. But, I do not see any big push to be “equal in earthly things.” In fact, most of my ward members seem downright resistant to the wealth equalization, Obama-style. (I know, I know, it’s not the same, but still . . .)

What do you think? Is earthly equality a something to shoot for? Or is it a heavenly aspiration we cannot achieve in the real world? Could Joseph ever have made it work by free will alone, without an economic or political system to reinforce (enforce?) it? Why has the Church implemented it in only the loosest sense? And, would Joseph have voted for the Obama tax and budget plans?

I suppose alliances are a necessary evil if you want to get anything done.  Companies do it.  Countries do it.  Even individual people do it.  What are the dangers of these “strange bedfellows”?

• Association.  Having our views misunderstood or misconstrued by outsiders or even by our own members.  For example, do some members begin to think that we have a different or stronger stance on issues because our associates do?  Also, when an “ally” does something really stupid (many have), does that taint us by association?
• Motivation.  While our alliances might coincide, often our motives are quite different below the surface from those of our allies.  When those motives differ, our actions are likely to differ as well as our desired outcomes.  Isn’t it also likely that we might be used to achieve ends with which we disagree?
• Conflict of Interest.  Once an alliance is formed, it’s much harder to separate our interests where they naturally diverge.  There may be pressure by virtue of the relationship to allow our allies greater latitude for things we might otherwise have taken a stance against.

Clearly, there are some groups we have been leery to court as allies because the risk was too high:  the FLDS, staunch pro-life groups, the ERA (not sure that was really under consideration, but just wanted to see if you were paying attention), and the religious right.  But consider for a moment some of the alliances church members have formed.  Some of these are alliances the organization has sought out, and others are more “grass roots” alliances that members have formed, thinking their interests coincide:

• Prop 8 Allies. Many of these are the same guys who:
  • think we are a cult
  • want to “pray the gay away”
  • make some very hateful and inaccurate remarks about homosexuals
  • supported Huckabee to knock Romney out of the race for POTUS because Romney believed Satan and Jesus were brothers and apparently in each others’ fave five.  (Hey, I guess by that logic we also think Huck and Satan are brothers!)
• Focus on the Family.  This is James Dobson’s ministry to protect families.  But they ALSO support school sponsored prayer, corporal punishment, abortion intervention, and intelligent design.  Additionally, they are far more politically involved in their causes than we are, and many of their causes are ones on which we have no clear stance or don’t go as far as they do (see the aforementioned items:  we don’t have a stance on school sponsored prayer, we caution against actions like corporal punishment at least within the family, our abortion stance is softer than theirs, and we teach evolution at BYU).
• Feature Films for Family.  Enterprises like this take a nice idea (clean entertainment that is family friendly) as a starting point.  Often they lack the talent and resources to make it high quality or a good value.
• Clean Flicks.  This UT-based company that catered to the LDS crowd by removing objectionable movie content was more of a benevolently-viewed off-shoot, but they were certainly viewed as associated with Mormons.  Hollywood didn’t like being edited by do-gooders and sued them over it (frankly these people don’t like to be edited by anyone!  have you ever seen a Director’s Cut?); Clean Flicks discontinued.  Then the owner was implicated in an unsavory pornography scam in Utah County.  In our lovely deseret.
• Rush Limbaugh. Obviously, this alliance only applies to those Mormons who are also politically conservative Americans, but since that seems to be a very vocal majority, this association is relevant.  Limbaugh emcompasses basic political characteristics:  fat, loud hypocrisy.  Frankly, he’s not doing Republicans any favors either.  Maybe if the NRA cuts him from their Christmas card list, he’ll finally know he’s gone too far.
• Stockpiling WingNuts. There’s clearly a distinction between the reasonable counsel to be prepared for emergencies and layoffs by keeping a supply of food and money on hand and the wingnuts who are building a bunker in the backyard with a stockpile of weapons in case they have to kill and eat their neighbors.  There are some supposedly “like-minded” individuals out there wearing tin foil hats and selling 72 hour emergency kits to church members.
• “Obamanation” Armageddon Theorists. This is an unpleasant blend of political conservativism (fine in its own right) and Rapture-mongering (the idea that we can bring the second coming on despite the statements that say “no man knows the hour.”)  Can’t we disagree politically without resorting to religious fear-mongering?

So, what other strange bedfellows are out there?  How do we avoid “the appearance of evil” by associating with those who share a passing interest, but in reality have aims that are far different from our own?  Is this an inevitable problem, or are there ways to more clearly distance ourselves from allies whose agendas differ or even contradict ours on many points?

Discuss.

I find Jude 1:4, 8-10 to be absolutely fascinating.  I have eliminated the skipped verses (5-7) and focused directly on the underlying attitude addressed in the overall passage and one specific application of it – and its implication for each and every one of us as we converse without being able to see each other.  Verse 4 reads:

There are certain men crept in unawares, . . . turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness . . .

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. 

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Please take the time to read the entire article, since it provides their justification for this proposal – and because I think it is very well written, regardless of agreement or disagreement with particular points in it.

My question is very simple:

Would this compromise work – for both “sides” of the issue?  Could you personally accept it?  Do you think those with whom you disagree would be able to accept it?  Why or why not?  Which group would have a harder time accepting it – and why?

If you think this would not work, is there a different compromise that you think would work?

I have lived here in the UK -London for 20 years now and when friends and family come over they sometimes comment on how green we are over here. They observe that most of us dry our clothes on the  line, drive much smaller cars, live in shoe box’s compared to the average size of an American home, walk to the shops, use long life low wattage low energy bulbs, changing windows over for double glazing, doubling up on insulation, are becoming more obsessive about recycling, drive low emission high mpg diesel cars, save left over food, food portions at restaurants smaller and public transport used far more often and readily available.

It amazes some of the Brits when they go to Utah to see how big the houses are especially in many cases for so few people who live in them.  Huge Ford Explorers, steak dinners that could feed a typical family of four.  When they go for the first time they come back thinking that it’s a land of excess.

I know there have been many of the changes I have described above happening in Utah and throughout the states but there is not quite the buzz or emphasis on it that I see here at least IMO!

I also have this theory that Mormons aren’t into green issues because

1. Many believe the second coming will be coming soon (God the creator of this earth will be able to clean up the planet in a second, our efforts are pointless.
2. We have to get our priorities right – family, missionary work, ward service, temple work.  Being green is definitely not a priority now
3. If it was important the prophet and apostles would be vigorously emphasizing it during conference.
4. It would be stressed and accentuated in the manuals
5. Gas guzzling cars – God created fossil fuels for our use.  He created this earth and when we run out God will inspire man to come up with an alternative fuel – he always provides for us.
6. God made fossil fuel for our use and we are fortunate to be Americans and live in a place where fuel is cheap and are blessed to be here.
7. We have proven ourselves in the pre-existence and in this life and we deserve the just rewards for being faithful members
8. An attitude of the more physical stuff I have cars, houses, boats shows were being blessed abundantly
9. We have been hearing a lot about fuel and energy—about their high cost and limited supply, our unsafe and unpredictable dependence on their suppliers, and the need for new and sustainable sources of energy. I leave the discussion of these complicated issues to leaders of government and industry. The fuel I want to discuss is spiritual fuel. Elder L. Tom Perry

Please discuss

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/23/why-arent-mormons-green/feed/ 56 http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/18/jesus-for-president/ http://mormonmatters.org/2009/02/18/jesus-for-president/#comments Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:15:00 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=4203 Many view the Second Coming as a time when Jesus will personally and politically reign, not just host lamb & lion mixers.  So what do you think?  Will Jesus govern politically?  Or is the notion that Jesus will govern politically more of the same wishful thinking that people had the first time around when they thought the Messiah would free them from political oppression by the Romans?  (Weren’t they disappointed!)

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

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

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