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

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

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

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

I have recently come across a group called Reform Mormonisim. I thought their views were interesting and as I mentally answered some of their questions here I was surprised how much of it resonated with me.

What I did feel in the end after reading much of their thoughts and material is why bother!! Why not become a nontheist Unitarian. Is it worth all the effort when there must be other religions very close to the same theology? Hopefully we can get someone from their church to answer that question

I have added a poll to this and must apologize to those at Reform Mormonism and to the readers at Mormon Matters in that they are totally paraphrased and maybe (unintentionally )taken out of context. So please go here to see them on their web page.

What they believe here

Reform Mormonism is a home-based, personal philosophy. A day of rest is held wherever one is at; there are no church services. Reform Mormonism does have special temple ordinances, that are designed to aide a person throughout their life, that are conducted in dedicated temple spaces. Unlike the LDS, they do not perform any temple ordinance for the deceased.

Reformed Mormonism are  individuals who have moved away from organized religion and have found peace and satisfaction in concentrating on the important things in life. We’re just like you – parents, children, brothers, sisters, friends and partners. We’ve settled on a personal philosophy that makes sense in the 21st century. It’s personal, important, and best of all, it isn’t scary like so many churches these days.

[poll id="151"]

[poll id="152"]

[poll id="153"]

[poll id="154"]

[poll id="155"]

[poll id="156"]

[poll id="157"]

[poll id="158"]

[poll id="159"]

[poll id="160"]

[poll id="161"]

[poll id="162"]

[poll id="163"]

[poll id="164"]

[poll id="165"]

[poll id="166"]

[poll id="167"]

[poll id="168"]

[poll id="169"]

[poll id="170"]

Recently I drove up Little Cottonwood Canyon with my brother and nephew.  This is the canyon in which many of your ancestors pulled out  the granite for the construction of the salt lake temple. As soon as we passed the granite facings on the side of the canyon my nephew played a song on his iPod by Corb Lund Brother Brigham Brother Young and it brought mental flashes into my mind of men working on the side of the mountain blasting granite out of it.    It made me think of the struggles that men and women had even back then with the faith in many ways very similar to our day. From what I have read Mr Lund isn’t LDS but has relatives that are. Im assuming one of his relatives is a historian buff? Its probably safe to presume this song will never be played in a chapel but I can’t help liking it!  You can listen to his song Here

Brother Brigham Brother Young

music and lyrics by Corb Lund

I have sinned so gravely Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I have sinned so gravely Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
That only you can save me Brother Young

I have revealed the temples secrets Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The temple garments, oaths and secrets Brother Young
I have apostatized and doubted Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And borne my testimony falsely Brother Young

And I have loved a woman Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A woman in adultery Brother Young
I have also wed a negress Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My fifth wife has some color Brigham Young

I now see that you’re a prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
A living, breathing prophet Brother Young
And now I believe the revelations Brother Brigham, Brother Young
I now believe your revelations, every one

Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Even the ones beyond all reason Brother Young
For you’re the Lord’s own earthly prophet Brother Brigham, Brother Young
And he’s simply testing in our faith o Brigham Young

My only hope for exaltation Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My only chance for exaltation Brother Young
Is to send me o’er the rim of the basin Brother Brigham, Brother Young
The rim of the Great Salt Lake Basin Brother Young

For water cannot save me Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Baptismal water cannot save me Brigham Young
My sins are just too deep a dye o Brother Brigham, Brother Young
My sins are just too deep a stain o Brother Young

So send Avenging Angels Brother Brigham, Brother Young
Won’t you send Destroying Danites Brother Young
To spill my blood upon the earth o Brother Brigham, Brother Young

So what do you think?

Do you find the song offensive?

Is it historicaly accurate of what may have happened to some of the saints in the salt lake valley?

Does it bare some similarites to what we have gone through in our day or not?

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?

Independence Temple

The site of the Independence Temple, or Temple Lot, is located southwest of the intersection of Lexington Street and River Boulevard in Independence, Missouri. On site is the headquarters of the Church of Christ. East and south of the Temple Lot are the Community of Christ (former Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) Temple and Auditorium, respectively. And southest of the Temple Lot on Walnut Street is the visitors’ center of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Also on Walnut are the Missouri Independence Mission office and the Independence Missouri Stake Center.

From the official founding of the Church in 1830 and throughout the next decade, Joseph Smith received several revelations that dealt with the location and building of a temple in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri. On 20 July 1831, the Lord said to Joseph, “Behold, the place which is now called Independence is the center place; and a spot for the temple is lying westward, upon a lot which is not far from the courthouse” (D&C 57:3).  Sidney Rigdon was commanded to consecrate and dedicate the spot (D&C 58:57).  Later, the Lord confirmed his command “that a house should be built unto me in the land of Zion, like unto the pattern which I have given you.”  The revelation further stated that the temple was to be built by “tithing and sacrifice.”  (D&C 97:10-12.) Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, T. Jeffery Cottle,  ”Window to the Past: A Photographic Panorama of Early Church History and the Doctrine and Covenants”

“On the third day of August, I proceeded to dedicate the spot for the Temple, a little west of Independence, and there were also present Sidney Rigdon, Edward Partridge, W. W. Phelps, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Joseph Coe and Newel Knight. The 87th Psalm was read. The scene was solemn and impressive.” D. H. C., Vol. 1:199.

While excavating for the foundation of a temple in 1929, the Church of Christ discovered the northeast and southeast cornerstone markers. The Great Depression set in shortly thereafter, and the temple was never built, but the stones are now on display in the Church’s visitors’ center room.

The Saints were expelled from Jackson County in late 1834, before they could make any progress on the temple. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to return to reclaim their lands. After they settled in Nauvoo, Illinois, Joseph recorded another revelation rescinding the earlier commandment to build the Independence temple:

” Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings….  Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.  (D&C 124:49, 51)  http://en.fairmormon.org/Independence_temple_to_be_built_%22in_this_generation%22)

Prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, a magnificent edifice-the New Jerusalem Temple-will be erected on the location of the Temple Lot.

Far West Temple

Announcement:  26 April 1838
Groundbreaking:  3 July 1837
Site Dedication:  4 July 1838 by Brigham Young

The Far West Temple was the second temple commenced but never constructed by the early Saints in Missouri.  The Far West Temple site is located in Caldwell County, which was created specifically as a settlement for the Saints, who had been driven out of Jackson County several years earlier in 1833.  Far West was the county seat. See D&C 115.

“Let the city, Far West, be a holy and consecrated land unto me; and it shall be called most holy, for the ground upon which thou standest is holy. Therefore, I command you to build a house unto me, for the gathering together of my saints, that they may worship me.”  (D&C 115:7-8)

The cornerstones were laid for the Far West Temple on July 4, 1838, in the following order: southeast by the Stake presidency, southwest by the Elder’s quorum presidency, northwest by the Bishop, and northeast by the Teacher’s quorum presidency. At the cornerstone laying for the Far West Temple, President Sidney Rigdon gave his famous Independence Day oration.  The speech’s passionate declarations fueled tension between the Saints and the citizens of Missouri, eventually culminating in the issuance of Governor Lilburn W. Boggs’ extermination order on October 27, 1838.

Despite the great risk of danger, five apostles-accompanied by several others-returned to the Far West Temple site just after midnight on the morning of April 26, 1839, in fulfillment of prophecy. A large stone was rolled on the southeast cornerstone as recommencement of work on the foundation, and the apostles left to prepare for their overseas missions.

The Far West Temple site was reacquired by the LDS Church in 1909 under the direction of Joseph F. Smith.

Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple

Site Dedication:  October 1838 by Brigham Young

The beautiful site of Adam-ondi-Ahman lies at a bend in the Grand River in northern Missouri, about 70 miles north of Kansas City. On the highest elevation of Spring Hill, 124 feet above Grand River, a temple block was dedicated. No cornerstones were laid or temple constructed, however, as just days later, the Saints were ordered to leave the settlement. The Church has since acquired the site and much of the surrounding area, which is leased to local farmers.

The Adam-ondi-Ahman Temple was the third temple planned but never constructed by the early Saints in Missouri. The name Adam-ondi-Ahman is an English rendition of a phrase from the pure Adamic language, which could possibly mean “Adam in the presence of God.”The valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman was revealed to Joseph Smith to be the place where Adam blessed his posterity after being driven from the Garden of Eden.The first settlers of Adam-ondi-Ahman arrived in February 1838. By November 1838, the Saints had been delivered an ultimatum to leave Daviess County within 10 days.

On June 11, 1838, Joseph Smith gave Spring Hill the name of Adam-ondi-Ahman.  Some evidence suggests that a public square-not a temple block-was dedicated in October 1838 at Adam-ondi-Ahman.

Adam-ondi-Ahman is the site of a future grand council where Jesus Christ will meet with His stewards of all dispensations and receive back the keys of the kingdom in preparation for His Second Coming. Only those called to the meeting will know of its occurence.

Samoa Temple

Announcement:  15 October 1977
Suspended:  2 April 1980

Steady growth of Church membership in the Pacific islands prompted the 1977 First Presidency announcement of a regional temple to serve the 50,000 saints scattered across the islands of Samoa, Tonga, French Polynesia (Tahiti), and Fiji. At the time, members had to cross the Pacific Ocean for hundreds of miles to attend services in the Hamilton New Zealand Temple. The Tahitian saints, who lived the farthest from the temple, devotedly traveled 2,500 miles to receive temple blessings.

A groundbreaking ceremony was anticipated to take place in late 1978 with completion of the temple in 1980.

The specific site chosen for the Samoa Temple was in Malaeimi Valley on Tutila Island near the village of Pago Pago, American Samoa, adjacent to a newly completed stake center. Its location on a bus-serviced road from the international airport made it easily accessible to the many members who would be traveling to the temple by air. The picturesque setting at the base of a lush natural hill-visible from the ocean-is covered with beautiful foliage and palms trees.

Church architect Emil B. Fetzer said, “We expect [the temple] to be one of the finest, if not the finest, building on the island as far as workmanship, design and materials are concerned.” Plans called for a 20,000-square-foot temple, which would house a baptistry, a 100-seat ordinance room, four sealing rooms, and a circular Celestial Room featuring stained glass (visible from the front of the temple) and crowned by a round roof and single spire. The grounds would be extensively landscaped and feature a water fountain and reflecting pool.

On April 2, 1980, a landmark announcement by the First Presidency of plans for seven new temples for seven different nations were accompanied by a location and design change for the Samoa Temple.  At a press conference, President Spencer W. Kimball said, “The Pago Pago location was selected on the basis of convenience for air travelers from other islands. Since there will be two other temples in the South Pacific islands, the Samoa site was altered to be more convenient to Samoan members. Its design will also conform to those included in this announcement.”  With additional announcements for Nuku’alofa, Tonga and Papeete, Tahiti, the location of the Samoa Temple was moved from Pago Pago, American Samoa, to Apia, Samoa. The design and size were altered to conform to a new 12,500-square-foot standard design. The location change placed the temple on the island where the vast majority of Samoan members reside.

Hartford Connecticut Temple

Announcement:  3 October 1992
Suspended:  30 September 1995

During the Saturday afternoon session of General Conference on October 3, 1992, President Gordon B. Hinckley, First Counselor in the First Presidency, announced plans for a regional temple to be built in Hartford, Connecticut, to serve members in the New York and New England areas of the United States. Plans were also announced for the Hong Kong China Temple to serve a large region of Southeastern Asia and a second temple for Utah County to relieve the overburdened Provo Utah Temple-later identified as the Mount Timpanogos Utah Temple.

Three years after the announcement, plans for the Hartford Connecticut Temple were replaced. President Gordon B. Hinckley explained in the priesthood session of General Conference, “After working for years to acquire a suitable site in the Hartford area, during which time the Church has grown appreciably in areas to the north and south, we have determined that we will not at this time build a temple in the immediate area of Hartford.” Plans were then announced for temples in Boston, Massachusetts, and White Plains, New York. “In other words,” he said, “there will be two [temples] to serve the needs of the people where originally it was planned that one would do. We have sites in both of these new locations.”

To the members of Hartford who had joyed in the announcement of this temple, Pres. Hinckley said, “We apologize to our faithful Saints in the Hartford area. We know you will be disappointed in this announcement. You know that we, and your local officers, have spent countless hours searching for a suitable location that would handle the needs of the Saints in New York and New England. While we deeply regret disappointing the people in the Hartford area, we are satisfied that we have been led to the present decision, and that temples will be located in such areas that our Saints in the Hartford area will not have to drive unreasonable distances.”

Harrison New York Temple

Announcement:  30 September 1995
Suspended:  Mid-2000s, following the dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple (2004)

On September 30, 1995, during the priesthood session of General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced that plans for a regional temple in Hartford, Connecticut, which would serve the New York and New England areas of the United States, had been replaced with plans for two temples for that region on sites in Boston, Massachusetts, and White Plains, New York-later designated Harrison, New York. “In other words,” said Pres. Hinckley, “there will be two [temples] to serve the needs of the people where originally it was planned that one would do.”

On March 8, 1996, the Church purchased a beautifully wooded 24-acre site for the temple at the highly accessible intersection of Interstate 287 and Hutchinson River Parkway. The location of the site in Harrison was reflected in a name change made during a major renaming of many of the Church’s temples to a uniform guideline in October 1999, making the White Plains New York Temple the Harrison New York Temple.

The residents of Harrison and the Town Planning Board were very much opposed to the Church building its Temple in their town. As a result, the Church scaled back plans for 89,000 Sq foot building to a 56,000 Sq Ft. in an effort to appease certain elements in the town. They reduced the height of the steeple from 159 ft to 115 ft. and finally to 44 feet. They applied for a variance from the town, which had a 30 ft limit. That variance was denied. The Church elected to pursue a lawsuit, accusing the town of infringing on freedom of religion and assembly.

The spirit of compromise filled members of the Harrison Town Board, who unanimously voted on April 30, 2002, to approve a proposed settlement with the Church, when it became clear that the town would likely lose in court and spend millions of dollars if legal action were pursued. The agreement resulted in numerous additional concessions by the Church including reducing the building from 56,000 square feet to 28,400 square feet, dropping the number of seats from 200 to 100, lowering the height of the building from 44.7 feet to 34 feet and steeple from 115 feet to 105 feet, trimming the number of parking spaces from 198 to 135, paying for any damage to Kenilworth Road caused by construction, and refraining from building anything else on the property for 15 years after the temple opens.

In August 2002, the Church announced its plans to build the Manhattan New York Temple inside an existing Church-owned building. Though the seven-year dispute in Harrison contributed to the decision, significant membership growth in the city was emphasized, as explained by Stake President Brent Belnap: “Growth in the five boroughs has been so great, that the logic of having a temple within easy access to public transportation in the heart of the city makes far more eminent sense.”

By 2006, the Harrison New York Temple was removed from the Church’s official list of announced temples. The decision to build a temple on this site would constitute a new announcement.

Paris France Temple

Proposed:  4 June 1998 by Gordon B. Hinckley

During a European tour to dedicate the Preston England Temple, President Gordon B. Hinckley met with about 2,400 members from two Paris stakes and three outlying districts. In his remarks, he noted, “When I came here after the war, there were so few members of the Church, and now there are 30,000 of you.”  He continued, “I don’t want to build up your hopes, but the time has come when you deserve to have a temple among you, and we’ll look for a place to build one.  I don’t know how long it will take to find a suitable site. I invite every one of you, my brethren and sisters, to plead with the Lord individually in your prayers to lead us to a property in this great city, or its environs, where we can build a house of the Lord so that you won’t have to travel five hours to Frankfurt or six hours to Zollikofen.  Please unite your prayers with ours, and the time will come, and I hope that it will be quick in coming, when we can construct somewhere in this area a house of the Lord, a sacred temple, into which you can go and do that work which is found only in the temples of the Lord.”

In May 2004, President Hinckley returned to Paris, shortly after the dedication of the Copenhagen Denmark Temple.  He met with French members on May 28 in a hotel convention hall on the property of Euro Disney.  Remarking on the upcoming dedication of the Manhattan New York Temple, President Hinckley expressed, “I wish I could announce that we could have a temple here, but we do not have a suitable place yet, in my judgment, to build it. And so, we will continue to look. I don’t know when it will be built, but I am confident that we will have a temple for the French-speaking people of the Church sometime in the future.”  Continuing he said, “You are worthy of the richest blessings of the Church. You are worthy of every blessing which this Church has to offer.  And there is no blessing greater than the blessing of the house of the Lord. And so, my brothers and sisters, I ask you to be patient for a time. I know it is a long way to Frankfurt where you go.  I hope that you will continue to go there, but sometime in the future a beautiful house of the Lord will grace this land.”

As the April 2006 General Conference approached, hopes rose that the Paris France Temple would be announced when French media disclosed the Church’s interest in purchasing a huge tract of land outside Versailles-about one-third of the small city of Villepreux-reportedly for a temple. A church spokesman confirmed the Church was working with the property owners, but he said that the use of the property had not been determined and that temple locations were announced by the First Presidency. The summer before, President Hinckley had been considering a parcel of land in Saint-Cloud, a suburb of Paris, but attention had now turned to the Villepreux property. Moulin Rouge owners, the Clerico family, were also the owners of the land. Of the three interested parties-an Arab emirate, a Russian, and the Mormons-the mayor of Villepreux said he preferred the Mormons for two reasons: morality and quality of investment. Never has there been any concern about public order with church members, he said.3 No temple announcement was made, however, and in the end, the Church did not succeed in acquiring the property.

Southwest Salt Lake Valley Temple

Proposed:  1 October 2005 by Gordon B. Hinckley

During the opening session of the October 2005 General Conference, President Gordon B. Hinckley announced the construction of a temple in South Jordan, Utah, later named the Oquirrh Mountain Utah Temple.  With this announcement, President Hinckley indicated that another temple site had been acquired in the southwest part of the Salt Lake Valley, which would be announced later once membership growth in the valley required it.

Last time, I did a lengthy post on Nepotism in the Church, which you can find here.  This is an update for this year so far.  As you can see, the list is pretty short.  I haven’t had a chance to go back and do more research on the appointments other than General Authorities, Temple Presidents and Mission Presidents.  Biographical information is hard to come by for Area Authorities and Stake Presidents.

One thing is clear; the church is getting much more diverse in appointments for Mission Presidents and Temple Presidents.  While there are still a number of Mission P residents coming out of Utah and other church strongholds, local/regional callings are on the rise.

As far as Temple Presidents, with the large number of Temples in operations, local Temple Presidents are now the norm.  Except for the “big” Temples in various areas, Utah, Hawaii, and Washington D.C where emeritus General Authorities or released 2nd Quorum of 70 members are called.

And while you don’t see a significant number of relatives being called to the General Authorities, long time Church employees or other “well-connected” members are getting the nod.  But this has probably always been true as President Hinckley was a long time Church employee prior to his call to the General Authorities.

The only time I have seen Big Love is on a transatlantic flight back home to Salt Lake.  My initial thoughts were how amazing to have a church just like ours (almost) right in our back door and no one seems to know of it, as they keep it fairly discreet on the show.

From what I saw these Josephites seem to be very similar (i.e. Family Prayer, FHE, Family Council, even similar programs and auxiliaries).  They even seemed to act like Mormons I grew up with.

Since there was a split of Josephites from the Brighamites, wouldn’t most of these branches have similar temple ceremonies to ours?  If so shouldn’t they be the ones who are offended, not the Brighamites?

Big Love episode draws criticism from LDS Church

Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creator and HBO assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons.

Here

Big Love Series to Show Rites from LDS Temples

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – The HBO series “Big Love” will show its version of temple rites belonging to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  The episode is scheduled to air Sunday, March 15.

Here

‘Big Love’s’ promise to show LDS temple rituals has many crying foul

Richard Cowan, a BYU professor of church history and doctrine, said:  ”It isn’t something that we want to keep away from everyone who isn’t a member of our faith, but rather something we would like to share with those who are personally and spiritually prepared to appreciate it.”

Here

‘Big Love’ prompts LDS Church response and analysis

Certainly church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding.  Last week some church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which (like HBO) is owned by Time Warner.

Here

Please discuss anything and everything.

Ever since I read the MHA study ranking Utah as the #1 most depressed state in the U.S., I’ve been asking my Mormon friends and family why they think Utah has a higher percentage of population reporting depression than any other state.

Usually, the initial response I get is one of surprise. Mormons I talk to are genuinely surprised that Utah, of all states, would have the highest percentage of adults reporting depression. After all, Mormons are repeatedly taught that “happiness is the object and design of our existence,” that “men are they might have joy,” that we are following the “great plan of happiness,” and that those who follow that plan enjoy a “blessed and happy state.”

Moreover, our friends and work colleagues occasionally comment that we Mormons seem to be a happy people. When I was a junior associate at a law firm, one day a senior partner unexpectedly said to me:

What is it about you Mormons that makes you so happy?

He then listed off the names of all the Mormons working at our firm and then observed:

All of you have this peaceful, contented way about you. Why is that?

I was totally caught off guard by the question. I tried to quickly think of an answer, and then rattled off something like this:

I think Mormons make a great effort to live according to their beliefs, and when we are living according to our beliefs, I think it gives us a peace of mind and contentment about our lives.

So over the past several weeks as I have pressed my Mormon friends and family for an explanation of Utah’s depression numbers, I’ve been surprised when almost all of them have said something like this:

Mormon culture is highly-demanding and emphasizes perfection, which leads to feelings of inadequacy and depression when Mormons inevitably fail to meet those high demands perfectly.

I’ve been surprised by this common response because, in a way, it is the same theory I offered to my work colleague to explain why Mormons are so happy, i.e., our strong commitment to righteous living.

But interestingly, when I ask Mormons whether they personally feel they have experienced Mormon-culture-induced depression, the answer is almost always “no.” It seems this concept of Mormon-culture-induced depression is something many Mormons believe in, but at the same time, they almost invariably believe it is something that is experienced by someone else. And that seems to be borne out by Utah’s depression numbers, because even in the “most-depressed” state of Utah, we’re talking about 10% of the population reporting depression, which means 90% of adults and adolescents in Utah are not depressed.

So what’s going on with those 1-in-10 Utahns who do report depression? Is Mormon culture what’s depressing them? Frankly, I have a hard time believing Mormon culture is behind Utah’s depression numbers, and here’s why:

• Problems that are expressed in terms of rankings can exaggerate the size of a problem because oftentimes the difference between best, average, and worst is small. For example, Hawaii (surprise, surprise!) has the lowest percentage of adults who report having a “major depressive episode,” which is 6.74%. The national average is 8.05%. In Utah, that percentage is 10.14% So when we talk about Utah’s “depression problem,” we’re talking about depression numbers that are about two percentage points above the national average.
• When we compare Utah to the other “most-depressed” states like Kentucky, Ohio, Okahoma, Rhode Island, etc., that gap is much, much smaller. For example, in Rhode Island, 9.88% of adults report experiencing a major depressive episode. Again, in Utah that number is 10.14%. So there we’re talking about a difference of just .26% between a “Mormon state” like Utah, and a non-Mormon state like Rhode Island.
• Mormonism’s potential responsibility for Utah’s depression numbers is further weakened by the fact that a very significant percentage of Utah Mormons are inactive, i.e., they are presumably not actively steeped in the supposedly depression-inducing Mormon culture.

So to summarize: to assess Mormonism’s potential responsibility for causing Utahns’ depression, it seems we would need to focus on the delta between the number of adults reporting depression in Utah (10.14%), and the most depressed “non-Mormon” state, Rhode Island (9.88%). In other words, if 9.88% of Rhode Islanders report depression without a strong Mormon presence in that state, then it seems at least 9.88% of Utahns are depressed for exactly the same sorts of reasons as Rhode Islanders. That leaves us with a delta of .26% of Utahns who might be depressed because of Mormonism.

I am also intrigued by arguments that Mormonism is depressing Utahns because, even assuming that Mormons experience more depression than others, it seems there are at least two possible reasons why that would be. Either: (1) the Mormon “plan of happiness” is fundamentally flawed and actually causes depression; or (2) a very small percentage of Mormons misunderstand or don’t implement that “plan of happiness” correctly and drive themselves nuts with unnecessary perfectionism.

If Possibility #1 were true, we would expect a lot more than just 10% of Utahns to be depressed. And we would certainly expect Utah’s depression numbers to be much higher than a mere .26% above a non-Mormon state like Rhode Island. Put another way, if Mormon culture depresses Utahns, isn’t it remarkable that 90% of Utahns report not being depressed?

So for me, Possibility #2, that a very small percentage of Mormons don’t understand or implement the Mormon “plan of happiness” correctly and therefore drive themselves nuts with perfectionism, seems to be the more likely explanation of what effect, if any, Mormon culture has on Utah’s depression numbers. And it seems LDS Church leaders recognize this tendency of some Mormons to miss the mark and become perfectionists, because they specifically caution Mormons against developing the sort of perfectionist attitudes that could cause depression:

When comparing one’s personal performance with the supreme standard of the Lord’s expectation, the reality of imperfection can at times be depressing. My heart goes out to conscientious Saints who, because of their shortcomings, allow feelings of depression to rob them of happiness in life.

We all need to remember: men are that they might have joy—not guilt trips!

(Russell M. Nelson, “Perfection Pending,” Ensign, Nov 1995, 86.)

I seem to have heard this type of statement by General Authorities many times over the years. Which makes me wonder: if a Mormon (or ex-Mormon) blames “the Church” for his depression, might it be more accurate to say that he was depressed in spite of his Church leaders’ counsel (e.g., the Elder Nelson quote above), rather than because of it?

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.

In his new book, Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell shares some interesting and scary information that correlate plane crashes with a cultural respect for authority. He shares the story of a specific plane crash on Korean Air in which an analysis of the dialogue as recorded on the “black box” clearly shows (to someone who understands the language and what its built in deferential markers mean) that at least 2 of the crew members knew they were off course and in danger of crashing, but would not directly tell the pilot out of respect for his authority.  Because the pilot was exhausted and stressed out, he failed to notice their hints and instead flew the plane into the side of a mountain in foggy conditions, killing over 100 passengers & crew.

This problem is related to Power-Distance Index, or the cultural expectation of respect for hierarchy.  The PDI differs greatly from culture to culture and is ingrained into that culture, insinuated in both language & customs.  Countries with high PDI had the following characteristics:

• High reliance on leaders for decision-making. Leaders are expected to be decisive, their decisions are followed without question; leaders are consulted for more routine decisions than in low PDI countries.
• Lower expectations of non-leaders. Non-leaders are discouraged from expressing opinions or making decisions (er, “the thinking is done”).  They are subordinates in every sense of the word.
• Restrictions on how subordinates are permitted to express their needs. In the highest PDI cultures, this is restricted to very indirect “hints,” which within the context of the culture are generally understood by leaders as a way for the leader to retain authority but save face.  However, this structure relies heavily on leaders’ ability and willingness to listen and respond to these hints.
• Fear of backlash. In very high PDI countries, subordinates were sometimes physically struck when they irritated their leaders or were too direct.  Fear and intimidation clearly impacted how willing subordinates were to speak up.
• Strong reliance on rules & plans. These cultures discourage deviation from accepted procedures, even when circumstances clearly dictate that normal procedures will be ineffective.

Conversely, low PDI cultures are generally the opposite of the above:

• Subordinate or employee-focused culture. Leaders tend to be apologetic about being leaders and ultra-sensitive to subordinates.  This is the basis for the concept of “servant leadership.”  (Or as Uncle Ben tells Peter Parker:  “With great power comes great responsibility.”)
• Shared responsibility for communication.  In a low PDI culture, the speaker is expected to ensure understanding.  The receiver of the message is also expected to listen attentively.  In a high PDI culture, only leaders are considered responsible for the receiving of the message.  The speaker’s input is not considered necessary anyway.
• Equality culture. Subordinates are valued as having unique roles or expertise that give them insight and make their input critical.  Their opinions are expected and weighed based on merit; there is a free exchange of ideas regardless of level.  Speaking up, even in disagreement with a superior may be rewarded in these cultures, even if done tactlessly or aggressively.
• High innovation and creativity. These cultures are very willing to abandon established procedures and brainstorm new ideas when circumstances dictate.  They tend to be flexible and innovative.

Just to give you a taste, here’s how a few countries stacked up on PDI.  High PDI countries (with strong respect for authority):

1. Brazil
2. South Korea
3. Morocco
4. Mexico
5. Philippines

Low PDI countries (note the commonality created by language):

1. New Zealand
2. Australia
3. South Africa
4. Ireland
5. United States

So, based on these parameters, is Mormonism a high-PDI culture or a low-PDI culture or somewhere in between?  Does it vary by region or is it common across the entire religion, preserved in the language and customs and doctrines?  How much does it vary from person to person? What are the boundaries of respect for authority in Mormon culture (what would even the staunchest Saint refuse to do)?

Based on the above, I would have a hard time considering most Mormon culture to be high PDI (as I might have expected), yet there are some elements of both high and low PDI.  To some extent, this could be due to the fact that the concept of hierarchy is mixed:

• Quorum Leadership.  There is an “oligarchy” in that we consider all the apostles to be “prophets” and their personalities differ greatly.  Yet all are viewed as being on the same “level.”  Some of them are high PDI individuals; others are low PDI.
• Christ as the Head.  Ultimately, we consider Christ to be at the head of the church, and since our notion of Christ is something personal (everyone can have a relationship with their Savior), we have a “bat phone” to the man at the top.  That’s usually a low PDI indicator.  The fact that Christ is not physically on the earth further reduces PDI.  Everyone’s notion of Christ has somewhat equal creedence so long as it is not directly and clearly contradicted by doctrine.
• Lay Clergy.  Positions are temporary, and we are all volunteers.  No one is being paid or truly promoted, and anyone could be called to serve in any capacity at any time.  There are instances of “unrighteous dominion” (high PDI), but there are also many committees and quorums making decisions at the lowest level possible (low PDI).  Again, there’s a lot of variation based on individuals in leadership having a high or low PDI personally.

In general, I would say that the church is mixed, with both high and low PDI elements, and that it varies more from individual to individual (meaning there is not necessarily a predominant culture).  What do you think?

Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The buzz is that the book answers all the questions. This new openness, scholarly approach and availability for the most controversial subject in Mormon history is quite amazing.

I guess Leonard Arrington is looking down with that wonder smile of his and quite proud of the historical department.

What are some of these continuing problem?

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>The Haight letter The authors of the new book say the September 10 letter from Young to Haight (see Brooks 44-45 for letter) could not contain a countermand to the Indians about taking cattle because of the complications with Indian relations. This Young letter has multiple problems. Why couldn’t Young change the policy he had just instituted on Sept. 1 telling the Indians they could have the emigrants cattle? Why did Young swear in 1875 that his September 10^th letter to Haight was lost and then the letter resurfaces for the Penrose defense of 1884? Did Young realize this letter implicated him? The letter causes concern over the emigrant’s safety and as Indian agent Young had responsibility to protect the emigrants. When Young gave Haslam the letter Young returned to his office “with a troubled face and bowed head”. Does this indicate Young realized his new Indian policy had gone horribly wrong or did he know Mormon’s had started killing emigrants? Brooks carefully analyzes the letter on pages 45-46. Young also gave the northern Indians all the emigrants’ cattle and horses as they were heading to California. (Huntington August 11 1857 and August 30 1857) http://www.mtn-meadows-assoc.com/DepoJournals/Dimick/Dimick-2.htm

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>What is the word? Multiple reviewers of “Blood of the Prophets” and the authors of the new book all believe the controversial word in the Huntington journal is “grain”. Does this mean the debate is over? Three other qualified historians read the word differently. Bagley and Lyman in their books bracket the word (Bagley, [allies] and Lyman, [friends]) to identify that they were unsure of their reading. Fielding in his book reads the word “Tutsegavit”. Since the photocopy was made available Bagley has changed [allies] to [grain]. Reviewers were very critical of Bagley for not pointing out the insertion of the word “allies” and suggesting he was “direct violation of the American Historical Association’s Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct”. In truth Bagley pointed out the insertion when he placed [brackets] around the word. For a photo of the journal entry in question see: http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/byustudies&CISOPTR=4141&CISOSHOW=4136&REC=3

Reviewers also claimed Bagley wrote, “In southern Utah illegitimate children [were] plentiful” (238),”. Actually Bagley writes “but the reality of pioneer life in poverty-stricken southern Utah was that children (including illegitimate children of mysterious origin) were plentiful.” As for illegitimate children one has only to turn to Howard Egan and his wife getting pregnant and giving birth while Egan is in California.

<!–[if !supportLists]–>· <!–[endif]–>Lost Documents With all the missing primary documents, how can anyone claim the questions have been answered? At best authors and historians can honestly evaluate the remaining documentary evidence and present both their conclusions and the evidence, both contradictory and supporting.

So, can you spot Mormons?  How good is your Mo-Dar?  Here are the clues we generally pick up on:

• people traveling with small kids in tow
• modest clothing with knee-length (or longer) shorts and shoulders covered for women
• occasionally, “eternal smile” garment lines under the husband’s shirt or other visible garment lines
• smiles and general friendliness
• couple using Spanish as a second language to communicate “over” their kids listening ears

In turn, we have been spotted as Mormons in some unlikely places.  My husband and I were travelling in Hawaii and we stopped to see a waterfall.  We didn’t have the kids along, and a woman came up and volunteered to take our picture.  Afterwards she winked at us and said, “You’re Mormons, aren’t you?  So are we.”  The only “marker” I could think of was the fact that we were dressed modestly in Hawaii, and we were friendly.  FWIW, my husband wears a goatee.

I have also found that it’s not the same as looking “Wonder Bread” either (not that we don’t look that way–we probably do).  My Mo-Dar has blipped over people of various races:  Asian, Hispanic, African-American, etc.  There is a certain je ne sais quoi, a Mormon quality to people that makes us stand out.  Is it “receiving His image” in our countenance?  And would Jesus look Mormon?  I suggest that (in contrast to most artistic depictions of him) He would, in fact, possess this same quality.  Incidentally, I have some non-Mormon friends who have this quality also, but the key difference (lack of Mo-Dar) is usually related to dress in those cases.  While they are dressed modestly, maybe it is Catholic modesty vs. Mormon modesty.  And, conversely, I’m sure there are some Mormons who don’t blip my Mo-Dar (if you know what I mean).

So, what makes your Mo-Dar blip?  And are these qualities the same as receiving His image in our countenance or just looking dorky?  Would Jesus look Mormon?

Obviously, there were actual Mormon colonies early in the pioneering days, which is how most of the West was settled. However, that is not the topic I want to explore. I have only had a few experiences with what I will call modern-day colonial Mormons.

1. When I was a teenager (1985), I met my first “colonial” Mormon in my home ward. A family moved into the ward from Utah. All the membership prior to that were from the local area. Immediately, the mother of the family started (subtly) pointing out things that were “wrong” about how our ward did things. We should have early morning seminary, not weekly (despite having six different high schools and a 25 mile commuting radius). The Young Women should do crafts and present group musical numbers. The bishop should do something about the crazy Pentacostal convert who kept shouting “hallelujah” and rapping her fan on the pew when a particularly good point was made in church.  And we suddenly had to have a Pioneer Day parade, even though it wasn’t a recognized holiday and hardly anyone had pioneer ancestry.  Little things like that.
2. My second experience was at the end of my mission (1990).  An older couple was assigned to one of the wards as ”leadership” missionaries.  The wife immediately began focusing on getting the local sisters interested in ”homemaking” projects (mostly crafts).  She expressed to me her disbelief that none of the sisters knew how to crochet or knit!  (Perhaps because it was a warm-climate island).  Previously, they had spent their homemaking meetings discussing how to have stronger marriages and how to help sisters in need.  I question whether this was an upgrade.

So, what happens in the cycle of colonialism?

• A colonizing group decides to expand to new territories, exporting their culture and traditions and imposing them on those colonized areas.   This is also characterized by:
  • A desire to preserve the cultural elements of the colonizing group and to impose those traditions, values, and practices on other cultures.
  • A condescending attitude toward local populace and customs.
  • A paternalistic approach to educate others on “the right way.”
• An initial fascination by the local group for the colonizing culture (e.g. Anglophiles); an (initial) agreement that the colonizing culture is in some way preferred or “better.”  (Some converts, especially in the early days, awaited for instruction from HQ as it were).
• Eventually, one of two things happens:
  • An eventual break at the local level with the colonizing group.  This could be a violent, intentional break (e.g. the American Revolution), a passive yet intentional break (e.g. Indian rights reform) or a more evolutionary break as a new culture emerges in the local area which supersedes the colonizing culture (e.g. Roman Catholic Church vs. Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church).
  • Guilt among the colonizing group about treatment of the local populace accompanied by awkward and problematic repatriation (e.g. French believe first and foremost in equality, yet do not like admitting the Muslim culture into their tightly-controlled society).  This can happen when the local populace’s issues cannot be satisfactorily resolved to create an equal status through independence.

But perhaps a third option, in the case of the church, is to become a truly world-wide church (the stone that fills the earth) in which diversity of culture is embraced while retaining centralized doctrine.  Is that really an achievable aim or is colonization a human tendency that is so ingrained it’s inevitable?  A lot has been written about the introduction of harmful plants and animals that changed the eco-systems of North America, such as the honeybee.  Are colonizing Mormons aware enough of the potentially harmful elements they may be introducing (e.g. funeral potatoes, green jello, prolific zucchini plants) into the native cultures to avoid it?  IMO, colonialism is harmful to both the local group and to the colonizing group if it 1) implies superiority of one culture over the other, 2) shifts the focus to cultural elements away from doctrinal, or 3) creates cultural rifts and inequities between different groups of the church.

As Elder Uchdorff mentioned in conference, we should embrace the “faith of our fathers” and most importantly of our “Heavenly Father.”  Jello optional.  Crafts not required.  Bring your own flan to the Pioneer Day parade that’s being held in someone’s backyard because none of the local members hail from pioneer stock; instead, they are all pioneers with their own tales of conversion and courage–they are among the first members of the church within their own family trees.

So, have any of you encountered cultural colonialism? Or has this largely been done away with over time (as you see, my examples are not recent)?  What is cultural colonialism?  Is it cultural colonialism that conference is in English, always held in Utah, even though there are more LDS outside the US now?

The underlying assumption in taking 400 children out of their homes is that the lifestyle itself is harmful; invading the temple is a direct challenge to the FLDS religion’s legitimacy.  The total absence of ACLU intervention further indicates that there is no legal basis for protection and that national sympathy is lacking due to illegal polygamous behavior.  If the FLDS women are viewed as victims, it is as complicit victims.  As Alice Walker put it Possessing the Secret of Joy (her book about female genital mutilation), “One tree said to another:  I have seen the axe, and the handle is one of us.”

The responses to the raid have varied greatly.  There are articles praising TX for its bold action to safeguard women and children from a dangerous patriarchal and insular cult.  There are sympathetic posts by LDS who view this action as the Extermination Order II.  There are critics of the LDS who condemn any lack of sympathy on our part as being hypocritical.  There are women of the FLDS baffled as to why they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs, their children taken from them, and their rights stripped.  I would like to explore the shift in approach TX has made, the legal and pragmatic implications of that, and the possible outcomes.

Growing up in the northeast (raised LDS), I had no idea that polygamy was still being practiced by anyone in the US.  I had assured my inquisitive high school friends that it had been done away with almost a hundred years ago.  I was truly shocked to find otherwise when I attended BYU.  My parents are converts, so we have no polygamous ancestry.  The first time I heard the term “polyg,” I thought it was an architectural style (“polyg houses”).  During my first temple recommend interview I had to ask what a “splinter group” was because I had no idea that (aside from the RLDS) there were other groups that had split from LDS.  The idea that anyone would voluntarily practice polygamy if there was any way out of it (e.g. the Official Declaration and it being made illegal) was beyond my comprehension.  My own teenage contemplation of polygamy really went no farther than to wonder whether it was something I could have lived if asked like some of those early church women, a safe enough exercise at a distance of a hundred years.  It was unpalatable, but as theoretical as other unpalatable things like eating a live cockroach or breast feeding.

Although I was initially outraged and chagrined that UT did not more actively prosecute polygamists who are clearly flouting the law, I gained a lot of respect over time for the pragmatic approach UT and AZ have taken.  Texas’ action, while bold, seems excessive; taking over 400 children from their mothers over one anonymous complaint of abuse is overreaching. As a contrast, there are recurring complaints of domestic abuse in some urban low income communities, but they don’t come in and take away all the children in all the neighboring apartments. And they would probably find a lot more abuse if they did.  It seems that people’s rights have been trampled and the innocent are being treated without much concern in a “guilty until proven innocent” approach.  The incident in Texas has been handled differently for several reasons:

1. Texas’ experience with polygamous sects is limited and recent whereas AZ and UT have had long-standing experience with polygamous sects.
2. One word:  Waco.
3. Everything’s bigger in Texas.
4. Some have suggested that Baptist sentiment is a force in this raid (at least at whipping everyone into a frenzy).
5. Some have suggested that an evangelical political plot is at play by casting the FLDS into the media at critical points in Mitt Romney’s political bid (either for POTUS or VP) to discredit him by a continual reminder that he descends from polygamists and is therefore too weird to hold such high office.

Having said all that, I would not shed a single tear if the end of polygamy is the outcome of this action.  I am thrilled polygamy was ended by the LDS in 1890.  And a religion (like FLDS) that encourages illegal behavior is inherently harmful if for no other reason than it creates a society of isolation and secrecy.  This type of secrecy can be directly harmful (creating an environment in which lying supersedes the truth), but secrecy is also indirectly harmful in that abuse can flourish in an isolated environment.

I acknowledge that there are issues wih prosecuting polygamy that make it difficult because consensual polygamous marriages are not legal; therefore, being in a polygamous marriage is not illegal because you’re only married to one person legally. It’s not illegal in this country to have consensual unmarried sex and children with many partners.  It’s called “hooking up,” and it’s quite popular (throw in a tramp stamp and a hairdo, and these women would not be getting hauled off in Baptist school buses).  So, prosecution usually focuses on:
1 - statutory rape
2 - abuse
3 - welfare fraud

Obviously, statutory rape and abuse usually require a complainant, difficult to obtain in most cases, but even moreso in a secretive group already wary of outsiders where patriarchal authority is unquestioned.  Welfare fraud feels a bit like nabbing Al Capone for postal fraud.  And it may fall into the “bigger fish to fry” category for pragmatic reasons.

So, what can be done?  If I were running the world, here are a few radical changes I would suggest (speaking of overreaching):
1 – raise the legal marriage age to 18 nationally, no exceptions. 18 is still too young if you ask me.  If I had to live with choices I made at 18 . . . well, I’m just glad I do not.
2 – eliminate home schooling or severely restrict it (e.g. limit to one consecutive year and insist on some additional oversight and socialization).

And lastly, if this does mean the end of polygamy (because it is being attacked directly for the first time), take the following steps:
1 – grant the mothers custody on condition they agree not to return to or enter into any more polygamous relationships. This requires ongoing monitoring, but if you’re going to take down polygamy, it’s the only way.  Otherwise, TX has to follow the AZ and UT lead and only prosecute what can be prosecuted directly.  Placing all the children into foster care seems unduly harsh; if the mothers were given a way to retain their children, even if it meant giving up their (sort of) illegal religious practice, many would comply.
2 – research and prosecute for every instance of abuse, statutory rape, and welfare fraud.  Go after these things with a vengeance until they are completely eliminated.

So, do you believe Texas has overreached?  And will Texas take it to the mattresses or not?  Does this mean the end of polygamy (again, once and for all)?  Or will TX back off and follow the lead of AZ & UT, only prosecuting what is feasible?  Will the ACLU ever intervene?  And if the end of polygamy occurs, can we “re-patriate” this splinter group into mainstream America?  Will they ultimately renounce Jeffs as a false prophet, leave the FLDS, and join the LDS?  Would they choose their children over their lifestyle if presented with that alternative?

And so it’s a kind of treat for me these days to get to visit a place where Mormonism and the landscape are coterminus. I just got back home from a 3-day trip to Utah County, Utah. Utah Valley University (as UVSC will soon be known) invited me to present at their annual Mormon Studies Conference and was generous enough to spring for the trip.

It goes without saying that Utah Valley is very, very Mormon. My book for the airplane this trip was American Vertigo — Bernard-Henri Lévy’s attempt to retrace Alexis de Tocqueville’s seminal travelogue.  Lévy’s observations traveling around America remind me that commenting on the foreignness of Mormondom’s heartland is surely a well-plowed furrow on the Bloggernacle. And yet I shall plow on.

Just as Lévy inevitably visited the Mall of America in the suburbs of my hometown of Minneapolis, so I too visited Orem’s Missionary Mall.

Beneath the giant inflated missionary (shouldn’t he have an inflated companion?), young men called to serve can buy all the durable suits their mission will require. The same strip mall has a “Sister Missionary Mall” store too, plus a Deseret Book, an LDS Distribution Services center, two food storage preparation stores, an LDS wedding dress shop, as well as my personal favorite clothing store: “KneeShorts.”

Of course we were able to get fry sauce at Burgers Supreme — is there any clearer sign that you’re in Zion? — but it was also available in bulk at the grocery store. The grocery store had two full racks of LDS greeting cards: “Congratulations on your Mission Call!”  There was even a Spanish section: ”Felicidade en tu Bautismo!”

Beyond all that fun, the real treat for me was the BYU library. The University of Michigan has a decent Mormon history library — probably about twice as many books as I have. Both are just a drop in the vast sea of books and periodicals lining row after row of shelves at BYU. I could hang out in the general book stacks contentedly for weeks without coming up for air. But little more than an hour was possible because an even more tempting treasure lured me deeper into the library: the special collections archive.

The archives house a vast trove of early Mormon materials. Just one example — I was able to access a box containing a couple dozen letters my ancestors wrote to each other in the 1860s and 1870s. (The actual letters, not copies.) The LDS branch of the family lived in Salt Lake valley and the other (who had left Mormonism) lived in Council Bluffs. In one letter, written by my great great grandmother, she described meeting a young man while attending school.  Sometime after the letter was penned this young man went on to become my great great grandfather.

As I was leaving special collections I ran into a scholar who had also come from out of state for the Mormon Studies conference. Having found his own priceless treasure, he told me, “Every minute I’m here is precious,” and added, “What’s shocking is how many people live in this valley and have never once taken advantage of the resources right here that we have to plan and travel to find!”

Too true!