Having served my mission in Ireland, I am familiar with the Catholic iconography that is present in many of their Churches. Having been raised Mormon I am familiar with the critical attitude toward these types of statues and paintings; and yet as I surveyed these works of art, some of them had a real impact upon me. Statues of the lacerated Jesus or of the dying Jesus or the crucified Jesus forced me to hold back tears for fear of embarrassment. Even a bust of the Virgin Mary moved me deeply. I sensed that it is a real loss to Mormon culture that we do not readily engage with these products of devotion.

Much of the LDS art that I have seen of Jesus seems banal and insipid. We see a calm, collected and/or kind Jesus; and yet he is rarely depicted in any of the extremes of suffering or joy that was surely part of the humanity of his life. I am aware of exceptions; but even these pail in insignificance to what these Spanish artists created. I believe that Jesus was, at times calm, collected and kind; but I also believe he experienced the full range of human emotions (good and bad). I believe his model for living was abundance.

More confusing to me is that the LDS ‘Lamb of God’ video is different. It makes an explicit attempt to evoke this type of passionate response in the audience by alluding to the vicious suffering of Jesus. Why is it that film is more acceptable as a means of presenting this kind of devotional material? Is this merely a cultural distinction, an anti-catholic hangover from Nineteenth century America, and if so is it not about time that we extend Priesthood legitimacy to all worthy forms of Art.

Perhaps Eugene England was right when he said that Mormons do not experience the ‘tragic’ as frequently as others because of the success of our religion, but I doubt it.

Yet this raises another question, why do we need to use these different media to help us connected with Jesus and his suffering. Are we more able to sense the visceral reality of his wounds if they are shown to us? Can we more easily believe in the atonement if we can see the suffering of Christ? If this is so, would not these type of ‘passion’ iconography be a useful medium to help latter-day Saints explore their relationship to our Lord?

Perhaps Mormons need to more fully explore the spiritual artistic heritages that are rooted in other faiths as well as trying to promote our own. I certainly feel that my faith has been enriched by some of what our extended Christian heritage has produced.

Dear Ask Mormon Girl:

Christina in Ohio

Dear Christina in Ohio (and big hello to Christina’s sister in SLC):

Salt Lake City is a company town.  Sure, it has all the vital features of a twenty-first century eco-vegan-tattoo-alterna-mountain-paradise.   But strip away the hemp lip balm and the yoga mats, and what stands beneath it all is an urban plan gridded out and still supervised by Brigham Young Himself.

The social ramifications of the Mormon origins of Salt Lake City are profound.  It’s possible to experience the city as two parallel universes, each pretending the other does not exist. There are, on the one hand, the Mo’s-with-families-content-unto-themselves, many of whom may spend 10 – 20 hours a week on their Church attendance, activities, and volunteering.  For these folks, it’s true, Mormonism can provide a satisfyingly complete social environment, and little time or space for outsiders.

Then, on the other hand, you have the heck-no-we-ain’t-Mo’s, many of whom would like to pretend that Salt Lake is just Boulder-with-annoying- liquor-laws-and-God-issues.  Elite members of this group may pretend not to notice the Mormonism of SLC at all, dedicating incredible psychic resources to barricading themselves against the obvious.  And in the dive bars of Salt Lake City, you will find the most curious local subset of the “heck-no-we-ain’t-Mo” set:  the self-declared “used-to-be Mo’s,” who plunge themselves and innocent bystanders into drunken discourses on the darkest aspects of Mormon history and culture.  Please be gentle with them.  Their world is a complicated one.

Meeting quality people when you’re a single professional woman over 50 is no cakewalk anyplace.  My hunch about dealing with the added challenge of living and socializing in SLC depends on one’s ability to walk comfortably in, out, and between its parallel universes without losing a sense of equanimity.

To that end, I suggest that your sister make intellectual friends with the fact she’s living in an utterly unique American geo-political environ, the urban legacy of a powerful nineteenth-century social movement.  Make friends with its Mormon specificity and all the good things it brings:  excellent white bread, for example (try Grandma Sycamore’s), or exquisitely wide tree-lined avenues, or local folk art, or the Beehive Tea Room.  Read up a bit, and I don’t mean Jon Krakauer (more on him another time).  Start with Terry Tempest Williams’s Refuge.  Or, more briefly, this fascinating lefty take on SLC politics.

Then, I suggest that she get outside.  Mormons have a genius for real estate.  Just so happened Brigham Young established the heart of Mormon civilization in a gorgeous wilderness, with world-class alpine slopes and meadows to the east and an infinite matrix of red sandstone slot canyons to the south.  If she heads over to REI and signs up for a couple of classes (snowshoeing is the new skiing), or goes on an outing with the Sierra Club, she’ll meet people of all ages who get outside, and that, in my experience, is one of the best ways to keep your balance, even in city as divided as SLC.

A few other suggestions for regaining and retaining a sense of equanimity:  Park City.  The Salt Lake Film Society. King’s English Bookshop.   And don’t forget the Jewish Community Center, which has a gorgeous health club and book groups open to the community.  If your sister feels like a stranger in a strange land, she could probably learn a thing or two from the Jews, who a bit about making friends and keeping a sense of humor.

Thanks for writing, Christina. Readers, many of you know SLC better than I do.  What advice do you have?

(Do you have a question for Ask Mormon Girl?  Email askmormongirl@gmail.com, visit askmormongirl.com, or follow askmormongirl on Twitter.)

I’ll get to the actual results in a moment, but first I have just a few preliminary notes. First, here’s a figure showing how many ballots voted on each of the 22 questions. (Up to three responses were allowed on Question 22; I counted a ballot as answering it if at least one response was chosen.)

I’ve put the topic of each question in the figure. It looks like the big four questions people were interested in were best big blog, best group blog, best blogger, and best commenter. I guess this is not unlike the Academy Awards, where everyone sits through awards like best portrayal of a Martian podiatrist in a supporting role so they can find out who won the biggies like best actor and best picture.

This next figure shows how many ballots answered how many total questions (from 1 to 22). For example, at the left end of the figure, nearly 300 ballots answered exactly one question.

Just like last year, by far the most common number of questions a ballot was used to answer was one: 296 of the 1058 ballots did this. At the other end, only 66 die-hards submitted a ballot answering all 19 questions.

This last figure shows how many total questions, on average, a ballot answering each question answered. Sorry–I know that’s a bit to unpack. What I’m saying is that for each question, I looked at all the ballots answering that question and then checked those ballots to see how many total questions each one had answered. Then I took the average of that total. For example, 680 ballots were used to answer the first question about best big blog. Those 680 ballots were used to answer a total of 6651 questions, or about 9.78 per ballot. Why do this? My hope was that this would show, at least to some degree, which questions were most likely to attract voters who were interested in only a single question (or a small number of questions).

It looks like the most frequently voted on questions were most likely to draw ballots from single or few question voters.

Okay, let’s get on to the main voting results. For each question, I’ll put up a figure showing votes for each of the alternatives. I’ll also put up a figure showing how many total questions, on average, a ballot voting for each alternative answered. Like with the third (green bar) figure above, with this I’m trying to find whether voters who voted on a small number of questions disproportionately voted for some alternatives over others.

Q1: Best big blog

Past winners:

• 2005: Times and Seasons, By Common Consent (shared)
• 2006: By Common Consent
• 2007: By Common Consent
• 2008: By Common Consent

BCC beat fMh by a very narrow margin: 271-267. This was such a small margin that I thought it might be interesting to look back over the week of voting to see how the margin evolved. Given that the vote totals were available for viewing throughout the vote, it seems likely that any back-and-forth between the blogs was not a coincidence, but rather reflected deliberate attempts by voters for each blog to push their favorite ahead.

Here are the cumulative vote totals, hour-by-hour, across the week of voting.

It looks like BCC took a fairly large early lead, while fMh lagged and did not even overtake Mormon Matters for second place until noon on Monday. BCC led by 21 votes at the end of the day Monday, but fMh overtook it completely on Tuesday and even held a one-vote lead for two hours between 4 and 6pm. But BCC then regained the lead and steadily pushed the margin up for a couple of days, getting it all the way to 30 votes by the end of the day Thursday. fMh had a big push on Friday, completely erasing BCC’s lead, and going up by 8 votes by the end of the day. Saturday was huge for BCC, though, as it outpolled fMh, 32-7 to retake the lead and go up by 17 by the end of the day. And in spite of one last push on Sunday, fMh never got the margin below 3 again.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

fMh was generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q2: Best group blog

Past winners:

• 2005: Nine Moons
• 2006: Zelophehad’s Daughters
• 2007: Zelophehad’s Daughters (best small blog)
• 2008: Segullah

Segullah wins for the second year in a row!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

Segullah was generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q3: Best humorous blog

This category hasn’t been used in previous years.

My Religious Blog takes the Niblet!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There wasn’t much variation in how many questions voters for the different blogs answered.

Q4: Best solo blog

Past winners:

• 2005: Dave’s Mormon Inquiry
• 2006: Dave’s Mormon Inquiry
• 2007: Category not used; Dave’s Mormon Inquiry received more votes than any other solo blog in the “Best small blog” category
• 2008: Keepapitchinin

Keepapitchinin takes the Niblet for the second year in a row!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There wasn’t much variation in how many questions voters for the different blogs answered.

Q5: Best new blog

Past winners:

• 2005: Snarkernacle
• 2006: Mormon Mentality
• 2007: Juvenile Instructor, Mormon Matters (tie)
• 2008: Keepapitchinin

As Sistas in Zion wins in a landslide!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

It looks like a couple of the less-voted-for blogs in this category were generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions. This should be taken with a grain of salt, though, because with few voters to base the average on, one voter voting for an extreme number of questions–whether 1 or 22–can push the average around quite easily.

Q6: Best blog layout/graphics

Past winners:

• 2008: My Religious Blog / Nine Moons

Times and Seasons takes the Niblet! I guess this means voters gave a thumbs up to their new look.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There wasn’t much variation in how many questions voters for the different blogs answered.

Q7: Best overall blogger

Past winners:

• 2005: Wilfried Decoo
• 2006: Wilfried Decoo
• 2007: Kevin Barney
• 2008: Ardis Parshall

Tracy M. takes the Niblet! An interesting pattern I noticed is that this list was dominated by women. Kevin Barney was the highest-ranked man at #4, and the highest-ranked man who did not fall below at least one woman blogging at the same blog was Andrew Ainsworth at #14. So I now have a new theory about why women are not given the priesthood. It’s because you all are such better bloggers than we are, and we don’t want to interfere with that.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There’s a lot of variation here, but not much of a pattern. Well, MCQ’s high total sticks out. Clearly he had the support of the most engaged voters. Bloggers who know^TM choose MCQ.

Q8: Best commenter

Past winners:

• 2005: annegb
• 2006: gst
• 2007: Julie M. Smith
• 2008: Ray

Congratulations to MikeInWeHo on taking the Niblet! Here a point of interest is that three of the top four commenters are not even Mormons. So is this an extension of the general Mormon inability to produce great artists at a lower rate than the rest of the world (considering commenting as an art form)? Or is it just a manifestation of the fact that sometimes people outside an organization can see it most clearly? Or perhaps is it just a fortunate accident that Mike, Jack, and CWC are all around to bless us with their words of wisdom at pretty much the same time?

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

Chris H. and Brian Duffin were generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q9: Most memorable comment

Past winners:

• 2008: DKL, on taking it on the jaw from Jesus to protect a troll from His wrath

Failing to take the top commenter spot, Bridget Jack Meyers wins for most memorable comment.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There is very little variation here.

Q10: Funniest thread

This category was not used in previous years.

Congratulations to Karen H. for her creation of the thread that was voted the funniest.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There is very little variation here.

Q11: Best post title

This category was not used in previous years. In 2008, Kris Wright’s “I Was Naked, and Ye Shot Me” was nominated in the write-in category for funniest post title and took 5th.

Congratulations to Kaimi for taking the funniest title Niblet. Note also that the subject of Kaimi’s title was none other than author of the most memorable comment, Bridget Jack Meyers. Coincidence?

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There is not much variation here.

Q12: Best humorous post

Past winners:

• 2008: TAMN, “The Down-There Doc” / BCC, “Police Beat Roundtable #10“

BCC’s Police Beat Roundtables take the Niblet for the second year in a row!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

“A Screwtape Letter” and “Deserving Charity” were generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q13: Best historical post

Past winners:

• 2008: Ardis Parshall, “Codes and Cyphers in Mormon History“

Congratulations to John Hamer for taking the Niblet for best historical post!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

The Patriarch series and “Joseph Smith’s Cane” were generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q14: Best personal post

This category hasn’t been used in previous years, but the “best post” winners in both 2005—Wilfried Decoo’s “Coffee“—and 2006—Ardis Parshall’s “Dressing the Dead“—fit well into it.

Tracy M. takes the Niblet!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

All ballots cast for David had all 22 questions answered.

Q15: Best spiritual post

Past winners:

• 2008: Kristine, “When Saw We Thee an Awkward Preteen?” / Russell Arben Fox, “Auld Lang Sin“

Congratulations to JA Benson for taking the Niblet for best spiritual post.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

“Tears in Heaven” was generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q16: Best doctrinal post

Past winners:

• 2007: Kristine, “Why I Liked President Beck’s Talk (Mostly)” (best post)
• 2008: AdamF, “‘Never Lead Us Astray.’ And Dissonance” / Julie M. Smith, “Is There Another Approach?“

Brad takes the Niblet for best doctrinal post!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

“Compassion for the Unworthy” was generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q17: Best current events post

Past winners:

• 2008: TAMN, “TAMNers Goes to Washington!“

Brad takes the Niblet for best current events post! Wait! Is there an echo in here? Never mind: congratulations on winning Niblets in two “best post” categories, Brad!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There is not much variation here.

Q18: Best Mormon-themed podcast

This category hasn’t been used in previous years. However, in 2006, Mormon Stories as best podcast won the write-in category.

BCC wins the Niblet for best Mormon-themed podcast! (This category will be fun to watch for in 2010, with John Dehlin recently deciding to bring Mormon Stories back, thus expanding the field again.)

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

Mormon Expression was generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q19: Best book/article review

This category hasn’t been used in previous years.

Congratulations to Amri Brown for taking the best article or book review Niblet!

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

The two least voted for choices were generally voted for by people who answered nearly all the questions.

Q20: Best contribution to or post about the Bloggernacle

Past winners:

• 2008: Tracy M., chronicling the struggle of her husband’s unemployment

Congratulations to Tracy M. for taking a third Niblet! (I’m sure nobody would blame you, Tracy, if you’d rather have an easier life and fewer Niblets. But given that you were going through so many difficult experiences anyway, I think we all appreciate that you’ve chosen to write about them so movingly.)

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

Tracy M. was generally voted for by voters who answered fewer questions.

Q21: Best contribution to interfaith dialog

This category hasn’t been used in previous years. In 2008, Bridget Jack Meyers won for “Nicest ‘Evil Villain’ / Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing,” which might be thought of as a tongue-in-cheek version of this category.

Congratulations to Bridget Jack Meyers for taking a second Niblet! Also for taking the same category (kind of) as last year.

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

Mark Cares Weblog was voted for by people who answered nearly all the questions.

Q22: Write-in category

Past winners:

• 2005: (The category was not used.)
• 2006: Best podcast: Mormon Stories
• 2007: Best controversies: Mormon grad students on welfare (Devyn S. at Mormon Mentality); Waldorf style nursery (Artemis at FMH)
• 2008: Best sideblog: By Common Consent

Congratulations to fMh for taking the write-in Niblet for best community! (Now does this make up for losing to BCC in the best big blog category?)

This figure shows average number of questions answered by ballots voting for each blog.

There is a fair amount of variation here, but I’m not sure it’s all that interesting.

Okay, that’s it. Thanks again to everyone at Mormon Matters–particularly Bored in Vernal– for inviting me to look through these entertaining results and write this up!

Hidden in our scripture reading for this week is a strange little passage which many modern Biblical scholars say was originally intended to explain the rise of the giant race of antiquity by the union of angelic beings with human wives.  These verses in Genesis stirred a lively debate among early Christian theologians as they struggled to explain why God felt it necessary to cleanse the Earth with a worldwide Flood.  It all starts with this odd passage inserted in the account before Noah built his vessel, the great ark.

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose…There were giants (Nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. (Genesis 6:1-5)

This small passage has been the subject of much dispute in Christendom, and two main schools of exegesis have formed. The first and most popular explains this passage as descriptive of disobedient angels (sometimes called Watchers) who descended from celestial realms and cohabitated with human women, producing a race of giants. Pseudopigraphic literature such as the Book of Enoch are dedicated to expanding this particular incident and serve as proof-tests for this theory. It is also similar in many respects to various myths of Near Eastern peoples. This interpretation has spawned all kinds of new-age speculation on alien races, their interaction with antediluvian human beings, and modern-day abductions — but is actually the more conservative and accepted interpretation by the higher critics.

An alternate explanation results by understanding the term “sons of God” to be the pious race descended from Seth, who sinned by marrying descendants of Cain, who would have been pagans. This is favored by some Christian groups who object to the idea that angels are physical or sexual beings. Many Jewish Biblical authorities prefer this explanation as well, to maintain an emphasis on one God.

The first explanation is definitely the cool one.  I would have thought that Joseph Smith would have been all over fallen angels, with his emphasis on the corporeality of divine beings.  But it turns out that Joseph didn’t believe in Watchers.  Hugh Nibley wrote an article explaining how Joseph’s theology in the Book of Moses provides a solution to the dilemma:

It is the Joseph Smith Enoch which gives the most convincing solution: the beings who fell were not angels but men who had become sons of God. From the beginning, it tells us, mortal men could qualify as “sons of God,” beginning with Adam. Moses 6:68 How? By believing and entering the covenant. Moses 7:1 Thus when “Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed … they were called the sons of God.” Moses 8:13 In short, the sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God. When “the sons of men” (as Enoch calls them) broke their covenant, they still insisted on that exalted title: “Behold, we are the sons of God; have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men?” Moses 8:21 (Hugh Nibley, “A Strange Thing in the Land: The Return of the Book of Enoch, Part 8,” Ensign, Dec 1976, 73)

Joseph Smith’s unique Mormon spin on the b’nei ha-Elohim was that they were priesthood holders, and the covenant people of the Lord, who were defiling themselves by marrying out of the covenant.  Their resulting progeny were “Nephilim,” or “fallen ones.” Joseph Fielding Smith later clarified the LDS interpretation of Genesis 6 when he scolded:

There is a prevailing doctrine in the Christian world that these sons of God were heavenly beings who came down and married the daughters of men and thus came a superior race on the earth, the result bringing the displeasure of the Lord. This foolish notion is the result of lack of proper information, and because the correct information is not found in the Book of Genesis Christian peoples have been led astray.  The correct information regarding these unions is revealed in the inspired interpretation given to the Prophet Joseph Smith in the Book of Moses. Without doubt when this scripture was first written, it was perfectly clear, but scribes and translators in the course of time, not having divine inspiration, changed the meaning to conform to their incorrect understanding. These verses in the Prophet’s revision give us a correct meaning, and from them we learn why the Lord was angry with the people and decreed to shorten the span of life and to bring upon the world the flood of purification.  (Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 1: 136.)

The doctrine is repeated in sermons in the Journal of Discourses, such as this one by Charles W. Penrose:

It is stated that the iniquity of man was great, and God brought a flood on the earth. Now, to understand that correctly we have to know what kind of position those persons were in, and why they were called the “Sons of God.” Those men were in the same position as the Latter-day Saints. They were heirs to the Priesthood. They were the sons of God. They had obeyed the holy covenants. They had received the word of the Lord. They were consecrated to the Almighty. But they went outside of their covenants and their engagement with the Lord, and took wives of the daughters of men that were not in the covenant, and thus transgressed the law of God. The law of God in relation to this has been the same in all ages, and has been given to this people—that the sons of Israel shall wed the daughters of Israel, and shall not go out to wed with the stranger. These men did that, and God was displeased, as He is to-day with Latter-day Saints, who are called out of the world to be His servants, to be holy unto the Lord, to be clean because they bear the vessels of the Lord, when they go outside and wed with the stranger. (Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. [London: Latter-day Saints' Book Depot, 1854-1886], 25: 228 – 229.)

Perhaps because of its controversial nature Genesis 6:1-4 is often ignored when discussing the causes of the flood, even though the strong link between them has been noted in the past.  More fundamental religionists believe that this type of explanation of the Flood underscores the importance of maintaining racial and spiritual purity. God’s believing remnant must be preserved. When men failed to perceive the importance of this, God had to judge them severely.  In a Pearl of Great Price Institute Manual, President John Taylor is quoted, describing the Flood as an act of love, done for the benefit of that generation. By taking away their earthly existence God prevented them from entailing their sins upon their posterity and degenerating them.  An additional quotation from Joseph Fielding Smith applies this lesson to our day, saying:

“Because the daughters of Noah married the sons of men contrary to the teachings of the Lord, his anger was kindled, and this offense was one cause that brought to pass the universal flood. . . . The daughters who had been born, evidently under the covenant, and were the daughters of the sons of God, that is to say of those who held the priesthood, were transgressing the commandment of the Lord and were marrying out of the Church . Thus they were cutting themselves off from the blessings of the priesthood contrary to the teachings of Noah and the will of God. . . .Today there are foolish daughters of those who hold this same priesthood who are violating this commandment and marrying the sons of men; there are also some of the sons of those who hold the priesthood who are marrying the daughters of men. All of this is contrary to the will of God just as much as it was in the days of Noah” (Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion 327)

Now, the Church still teaches that it is preferable not to marry outside of the covenant.  But we’re usually not so un-PC as to suggest that marrying non-members is an abominable sin that may cause mankind to be swept off the earth.  Some of you reading this post may not even agree that marrying outside the covenant is what brought a great judgment upon these people.  Once again, we’re seeing a shift in doctrine, to the point that some Latter-day Saint thinkers are again putting credence in the “Watcher” theory of Genesis 6.  Recent examples are posts by Yellow Dart at Faith Promoting Rumor, Seth P. at his blog, and David Larsen at Heavenly Ascents. In this, we’re not so different than the Christian world, where the debate continues.

Robert C. Newman points out some interesting facts concerning the current controversy:

The present form of the debate is rather paradoxical. On the one hand, liberal theologians, who deny the miraculous, claim the account pictures a supernatural liaison between divine beings and humans. Conservative theologians, though believing implicitly in angels and demons, tend to deny the passage any such import. The liberal position is more understandable with the realisation that they deny the historicity of the incident and see it as a borrowing from pagan mythology. The rationale behind the conservative view is more complex: though partially a reaction to liberalism, the view is older than liberal theology.

Why do you think our LDS bloggers are beginning to reconsider such an unusual theory?

There is a young man in your ward who seems to push the limits on the clothes he wears.  Both his parents are active, but they seem to be struggling with him.  He is worthy to pass the sacrament, and he even wears a white shirt to church on Sundays.  But sometimes he wears loud rock band tee shirts beneath his white shirt (like “Led Zeppelin”) that are plainly visible.  His belts have spikes all the way around them.  There is a chain that hangs from his pocket that connects to his wallet.  One Sunday while passing the sacrament, he wears a very large skull buckle.  It is very large and obvious to everybody what it is.  Another Sunday he wears a Confederate flag belt buckle.

Would your answer change if he lived with no father in the home?  Would your answer change if there was a black family in the ward who noticed his Confederate belt buckle? Discuss.

In D&C 86: 1- 7, the Lord gives the interpretation of that parable. He states that in the last days, the separation of the Wheat from the Tares will occur.

It appears to indicate that this sifting occurs during the judgment period.

But with more than 2/3’s of the Church inactive, and many people leaving the Church altogether, is the Wheat being separated from the Tares now?

Equality is the quality of being the same in quantity or measure or value or status.  I realize that it has become politically correct to describe our LDS families as simultaneously patriarchal and equality-based.  But this is linguistically impossible. (Whew. I’m having uncontrollable urges to type in all caps.)   The Proclamation on the Family attempts to describe a family situation where fathers are responsible to preside and provide but at the same time both partners are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

In order to do this, Mormons attempt to change the definition of patriarchy to something that has little or no meaning. The patriarch in a family, they insist, does not hold the power or authority over his wife to the extent that it would negate her equality.  Instead, he merely calls the family together for spiritual activities and invites a family member to say the prayer.  As one blogger so succinctly stated it, “The patriarch is the presiderer, not the deciderer.” He further explains:

“Men and women are consider to be of equal status in the LDS church…Because childbirth and child-rearing tends to be spiritually sanctifying endevers for women, the priestood assigns men spiritual duties that they would not normally take on themselves… How does this presiding business affect decision-making? Not much. When my wife and I make a decision, we make it together. I would never just tell my wife, ‘I am the deciderer.’ In conclusion, God has given that men preside because of our lack of spiritual fitness. We need the exercize.”

Unfortunately, this blogger not only needs work on spelling words which begin with “e,” he also needs to look up the definition of the word “preside.” This word, far from softening the meaning of patriarchy, only serves to reinforce:

Preside — To occupy or hold a position of authority, as over a meeting. To possess or exercise power or control.

If the LDS Church is to move to a stance of equal partnership within the family, they really have no choice but to lose the words “patriarchal” and “preside” with respect to the position a husband holds in the home.

“But BiV,” you say.  “We’ve been over this ground many times before.  Why bring it up again?”

I bring it up because I fear that with the attempt to soften the rhetoric of patriarchy/presiding in the home and make it compatible with equality, our members are losing the sense that patriarchy is a social construct (see our definitions below).  There is no necessity to consider patriarchy an eternal condition.  I prefer to look at patriarchy as a negative effect of the Fall (thy desire shall be to thy husband and he shall rule over thee) which will be ameliorated in the eternal realm.  President Spencer W. Kimball wrote a foreward to the Brigham Young University publication of Hugh W. Nibley’s discourse on the ideal of marriage in God’s Eden and stated:

“There is no patriarchy or matriarchy in the Garden; the two supervise each other … and [are] just as dependent on each other.”

We do not know exactly what Priesthood and Priestesshood will look like in a post-mortal condition.  But we have been taught that equality will be restored.  Elder James E. Talmage wrote:

“It is not given to woman to exercise the authority of the Priesthood independently; nevertheless, in the sacred endowments…woman shares with man the blessings of the Priesthood.” Talmage then hints at a greater sharing of priesthood in the next life: “When the frailties and imperfections of mortality are left behind, in the glorified state of the blessed hereafter, husband and wife will administer in their respective stations, seeing and understanding alike, and co-operating to the full in the government of their family kingdom.” (“The Eternity of Sex,” YW Journal 25 (October 1914): 602-603)

The shift to an equality-based home in recent times is commendable.  I feel it more accurately represents the balance of power and oneness which will prevail in the eternal realms.  A majority of two-parent LDS homes today are organized around an ideal expressed by Gordon B. Hinckley as follows:

“In this Church the man neither walks ahead of his wife nor behind his wife but at her side. They are coequals…  Since the beginning, God has instructed mankind that marriage should unite husband and wife together in unity.  Therefore, there is not a president or a vice president in a family. The couple works together eternally for the good of the family. They are united together in word, in deed, and in action as they lead, guide, and direct their family unit. They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” ( Ensign, Nov. 1996, 49.)

If this egalitarian goal is to be accomplished, the competing words “patriarch” and “preside” must be eliminated from the description of family dynamics. They are not useful in encouraging the father to play a more active role in the spiritual life of his family. Instead, the rhetoric should change to more concisely describe the desired result.  Why not urge fathers to become more involved in spiritual instruction, or to more enthusiastically model religious behaviors, if that is what we mean by “presiding?”
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Patriarchy:

• A form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe (Random House Dictionary)
• A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language)
• A family or society in which authority is vested in males, through whom descent and inheritance are traced. (American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy)
• Social system in which the father or a male elder has absolute authority over the family group; by extension, one or more men (as in a council) exert absolute authority over the community as a whole. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
• Social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line; broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary)
• a society, system, or organization in which men have all or most of the power and influence (Macmillan Dictionary)

It gets better in Genesis 6:4.  Nephilim were on the earth before and after the flood.  See also Numbers 13:33.  Reading context, translator notes and older traditions makes the point very clearly.  There appear to have been no Nephilim on the Ark. Which fits with the dividing the land with the gentiles, “everyone, after his tongue.”

Which makes for interesting implications.  What other survivors were there outside the Flood?  The Nephilim, the gentile nations speaking other languages, all the fish (salt and fresh water — no fish on the Ark, just FYI), there is a lot to think about there.

But better, lots to speculate about!

• self-discipline (especially those Opus Dei guys)
• organization (even OCD one might say)
• consistency (predictable?)
• get more done (overachievers!)
• deeply committed athletes (who don’t take steroids) may be abstainers.  (They write a book or sell a bunch of cheesy rubber bracelets, and we eat that stuff up with a spoon!)

But indulgers don’t exactly have great things to say about abstainers either.  When’s the last time that the self-disciplined, church-going white-collar guy with the tidy apartment and even tidier life got the girl in a Rom-Com?  No, it’s always the laid back, blue-collar bar owner with a heart of gold and a huge slobbery dog – right?  Indulgers also have some admirable traits:

• tend to be more open-minded (hence Scientology)
• less stressed out (perhaps it’s the marijuana brownies)
• have more fun (play now, pay later)
• life is an adventure; exploration is valued (no holds barred!)
• tend to be more artistic & individualistic (wacky even)
• have more empathy (been there, done that)

Denominational churches are typically set up to reward abstainers; abstainers are highly committed to the church’s rules and regulations and they often end up running the place.  And abstainers often view indulgers as “weak” and self-serving, unable to live to the high standards they themselves embrace.  Indulgers are often turned off by the rigid environment in churches, which further reinforces the disdain of the abstainers.

So, where do you fit?

Discuss.

This week, dear Mormon Matters readers, Ask Mormon Girl takes a foray into the wild world of sports.

Perhaps you’ve heard about the unruly behavior San Diego State University Aztec basketball fans directed at Brigham Young University on Saturday, January 23, when a few dozen SDSU fans dressed up as LDS missionaries (complete with name tags and bike helmets), held signs taunting illness-stricken BYU guard Jimmer Fredette (“Jimmer, which one of your wives gave you mono?”), and compensated for their 71-69 loss by chanting “You’re still Mormon!” at departing BYU players and fans.

The episode caught national attention when Sports Illustrated’s Seth Davis called the Aztec fan behavior “classless.”  Two days later, the Deseret News picked up the story, and the following letter appeared in the askmormongirl@gmail.com inbox:

Dear Mormon Girl:

Don’t you live in San Diego?  Don’t you work at San Diego State University?  Can’t you control your people???!!!

Signed,

J. D.

Yes, J.D., it is true that both my husband and I are full-time employees of San Diego State University, where we have grown to love the beautiful campus and its diverse, bright, hardworking students (many of them first-generation college).  I adore the Aztecs who populate my lecture halls, especially when they manage to restrain themselves from thumb-typing illiterate little screeds into their magic phones and focus on the assigned reading.

But in the world of the sports arena crueler speech customs reign.  And my visiting teacher, a multi-generation local, tells me that SDSU animus towards BYU is deep and longstanding.  It gets unruly down here at the southwestern fringes of the Book-of-Mormon-belt, where we Mormons are numerous enough to constitute a definite element of the cultural landscape but still few enough to be a small minority.  And I bet many folks are feeling a little tender about homemade signs with polygamy jibes and anti-LDS chanting given that only a year has elapsed since the difficult days following the passage of California’s Proposition 8.

Among the Cougar faithful, reaction to the SDSU incident has broken two ways:  some giggle at the missionary dress-ups and dismiss the harsher jibes as regular trashtalking, while others call it “hate speech” and say it would have never been tolerated if the targets were, for example, gays or lesbians or Jews.

Not so fast, I say:  the question of what exactly constitutes “hate speech” deserves sober reflection, and anyone who thinks that gays and lesbians and Jews have it easy should sit down and study the latest California hate crime statistics. Personally, I’d feel more comfortable using the term “hate speech” if someone could identify for me a way in which Mormons are today systematically and structurally discriminated against as Mormons on the basis of our Mormon identity alone, besides encountering bias when one of us runs for president.  Does the simple fact of being born Mormon make it statistically more likely that we’ll be turned down for an apartment or a mortgage, or incarcerated, or targeted for public beating, or die an early death?  No, no, no, and no.

And yet, even as I was preparing to finish this column, my husband (who is Jewish) came home this afternoon and related the conversation he had with our neighbor (also Jewish), an SDSU basketball fan.  “I can’t stand that Jimmer Fredette,” the neighbor complained. “Man, I hate the Mormons.”

Did neighbor Aztec fan mean he actually hated the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Did he mean he hated me?  Or me and my husband’s children?  Or was there in his speech a quiet transformation of Mormons into mascots, a metonymic substitution with ugly side effects?  Do people say “I hate the Catholics” when they root against Notre Dame?  I don’t think so.  I don’t know.  I’m not sure I have a good handle on the strange, complex, and shifting place we Mormons occupy in American society, and I study religion and race for a living.

So, J. D., you asked mostly in jest, “Can’t you control those people?” And my unexpectedly serious answer is nope, no one can.  All we can control is the way we react to them.

As clever and giggle-worthy as the missionary dress-up routine was, no one likes to hear the name of their religion hurled as a taunt, especially Cougar fans who look forward to BYU games as a chance to bleacher-bond with the grandkids and other Mormons.

But it helps to remember that the word Mormon was used in the 1830s as a pejorative and has since become a word that we’re proud to own.

And in this we do have a clear common experience with other American minorities, including Black folks, Jews, women, and gays and lesbians, who know that the quickest way to neutralize a word designed to wound is to take it back and use it yourself–with pride, with style, and with flair.

So if this Mormon Girl were in the bleachers that night (I was just across the freeway at my daughter’s preschool benefit) and she heard the “You’re still Mormon!” jeers ringing across the arena, her very first instinct would have been to tuck her Young Womanhood medallion inside her blouse, shout out something in the key of J. Golden Kimball, and huck her leftover nachos at the offending Aztec fans.

Then, mustering a modicum of self-restraint, she might have quietly devised a clever counter-taunt, something along the lines of:  “That’s alright! That’s okay!  We’ll baptize your dead someday!”

Finally, reaching deeper, she would have resolved that the best response to the accusation “You’re still Mormon!” is a resounding “Yes, I am!”

Readers, what would you say?

Send your queries to askmormongirl@gmail.com, or follow askmormongirl on Twitter.

Join us one week from today to view Ziff’s professional summary!!

Niblets winners 2009 are cordially invited to use this button:

View Winners below——-

Best Big Blog

• BCC

Best group blog

• Segullah

Best Humorous Blog

• My Religious Blog

Best Solo Blog

• Keepapitchinin

Best New Blog

• As Sistas in Zion

Best Blog Layout/Graphics

• Times & Seasons

Best Overall Blogger

• Tracy M.

Best Commenter

• MikeinWeHo

Most Memorable Comment

• Bridget Jack Meyers’ comment #16 at Like a Virgin

Funniest Thread

• Come ye Poets of the Bloggernacle by Karen H.

Best Post Title

• How Wide the Divide…and can we ever Bridget? by Kaimi

Best Humorous Post

• BCC’s Police Beat #14-19

Best Historical Post

• The Milk Strippings Story by John Hamer

Best Personal Post

• A Study in Contrasts: The Dole by Tracy M.

Best Spiritual Post

• Tears in Heaven by JA Benson

Best Doctrinal Post

• There is an end to Race by Brad

Best Current Events Post

• Captain Moroni is not a man of God by Brad

Best Mormon-Themed Podcast

• BCC’s Zeitcast

Best Book/Article Review

• Amri Brown’s review of The NY Regional Mormon Singles Halloween Dance by Elna Baker

Best Contribution to or Post about the Bloggernacle

• Tracy M. for sharing her life publicly

Best Contribution to Interfaith Dialogue

• Bridget Jack Meyers at Clobberblog

Write-in Category (Top 3)

• Best Community: FMH
• Most heartbreaking-wrenching-joyous-all-mixed-into-one: John Remy’s excommunication
• Coolest Maps and Diagrams: John Hamer

One way this tendency has been manifested is the shifting practice concerning Common Consent, which I previously discussed here.  Quinn also argues that during the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century, sustaining votes were sometimes used to reject the proposed candidate.  This was encouraged in the context of a voluntary obedience.  However, following the presidencies of Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee, the discourse around common consent became associated with the idea that a vote against a leadership decision was a rejection of the will of the Lord.  Thus, Church leader’s fears of losing control completely of the membership may have led them to emphasis a new type of relationship with Church authorities.  Quinn argues that this can be seen through a concern that some leaders had that the Church would be run by specialists rather than priesthood authority, thus the increased emphasis upon the ‘brethren’.

What does this mean for the Church currently and its membership?  Much has been said both officially, at GC, and unofficially, among the membership, about Church growth.  In general it has slowed (or flat-lined) over the last decade across the world.  It is possible therefore, that as Church growth slows or remains constant that we will see reversals in the way the Church approaches the issues of authoritarianism and doctrine.  I am not trying to argue that the Church is ever wholly conservative or liberal.  My point however is that as new ideas, practices and technologies are assimilated in the Church’s power structure there will inevitably be the emergence of new assemblages of power and new types of discourse.  In the same way that new conservative mechanisms where emphasised and solidifed throught the development of new media, so it is possible that these same changes could provide more liberalising assemblages/discourses.  Thus it is possible that as the Church, and its culture, become more firmly established its Leaders may become more relaxed about ‘the centrifugal tendencies’ Quinn observes.

However, the problem with this hypothesis is that Church growth is not equal across the world.  We have already seen these fears manifest themselves in the Church’s response to exponential growth in areas such as Chile and Philippines (where in each case they sent Apostles to specifically preside over those areas).  Contrastingly, the emphasis on finding local leadership at the general level (Area Authority Seventies – and the like) may result in increased scope for variation and interpretation[2].  Thus it is possible that in those areas like Western Europe (where I am from) where the Church is established and hardly growing, there might be increasing tendency toward liberalism, while in areas of relative instability the emphasis will remain on unquestioning obedience.  However such differences are of course mediated by whether the Church wants to retain a unified approach across the globe (a fact which some have posited will be a major restriction to Church growth[3].

It is possible that the previous liberalisation toward academia, argued for in my previous post, may be part of a wider dynamic linked to the slowing down of Church growth?

Do you think this is plausible?

Notes:

1. D. Michael Quinn, From Sacred Grove to Sacral Power Structure in Dialogue, vol. 17, no. 2 [Salt Lake city, UT.: Dialogue Foundation, 1984] p. 29.

2. Armand L. Mauss, Can there be a Second Harvest? in International Journal of Mormon Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, [online, 2008], pp. 1-59.

3. Douglas J. Davies, World Religion: Dynamics & Constraints at The Worlds of Joseph Smith Conference.

Differences in religious belief can be the death knell to a marriage. For that reason, many organized religions strongly advocate against being “yoked with unbelievers”. This is not only a Mormon phenomenon; you see this in any faith tradition that teaches that they alone have exclusive access to God. Even before marriage, it is rare for the unmarried, devout Mormon to even consider dating (let alone marrying) a non-Mormon; most LDS women raised in the Church are taught from an early age to make a temple marriage to a returned missionary their primary goal.

Likewise, in the Catholic Church, marriage to any non-Catholic (including Protestants!) is not permitted within a Catholic church building, and is not considered to be a Sacrament. In particularly conservative Catholic cultures, it really is considered a heresy to marry someone not of the (same rite of the) Catholic Church. Consider, for example, the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding: Toula refuses to marry Protestant Ian until he joins the Greek Orthodox Church (thus leading to a humorous scene of Ian being baptized).

Similar to Mormon ‘Marriage Prep’ and ‘Temple Prep’ Sunday School courses, dating Catholic couples are required to pursue a several-month course of marriage preparations classes, known as Pre-Cana. Similar to Mormons, Catholics who have pre-marital sexual relations (usually known from the resulting offspring) cannot be married on Catholic church grounds. However, they can have their marriage “convalidated” at a later date, similar to to a family being ’sealed’ a year after a civil marriage.

I compare these things not so much to indicate how Catholics do things so much as to show just how non-unique Mormons are in many ways with regards to their approach to interfaith marriage.

Disbelief that comes after marriage, however, is harder to deal with. Despite the admonition of Paul in the 1 Corinthians that:

[I]f any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. (1 Cor. 7:12-14)

it is really not all that uncommon to see marriages Mormon temple marriages dissolve once one member of the union loses faith. The same can also be true in Catholic culture, where one of the vows made at the altar is to raise your children Catholic.

A few examples, then, to illustrate some of what I am talking about:

A Mormon female friend of mine (who also happens to be a reader of this blog) attended a non-LDS university for college. Her Patriarchal Blessing was explicit that she was to marry an RM in the temple. When a Baptist schoolmate asked her on a date, she turned him down several times before giving him an ultimatum: She would only go on a date with him if he would read the Book of Mormon and consent to taking the missionary discussions. Confident that the Mormon church was misguided, and that he could show her the error of her ways, he consented. He joined the LDS Church and they two were married in the temple a year later. Obviously, she and the Church would consider this example to be a huge success story; his Baptist family, in contrast, at that time considered their daughter-in-law to be the devil incarnate. (I suspect that they mellowed with time).

Another friend at the same university for four years dated a non-Mormon off and on, and was fairly involved with him physically (although never so far that she needed to go to the Bishop). She loved him and he proposed to her, but since he was not interested in the Church, she said no. Several years later, she met and married a convert of 1 year, in the temple. Another Church success story.

A Jewish friend attended a Jew-friendly university, but did not find a spouse. She later moved to an area in the Midwest that was predominantly Protestant, and met and fell in love with a Protestant. They moved in together, but when her family would call or visit, she threw him out of the house for the weekend. When her parents found out that she was dating this man, they first gave her a series of lectures on being ‘married under the canopy’ and of all that her grandmother had suffered at Auschwitz. They then cut off all verbal communication with her. When the grandmother found out about the boyfriend, she literally suffered a stroke. She broke up with the boyfriend, and later married an Orthodox Jew and was welcomed back into her family.

A Muslim co-worker of my husband’s met and married a Hindi woman. The parents of the Muslim refuse to acknowledge their daughter-in-law, and the parents of the Hindu refuse to call the Muslim by his real name, instead calling him by the Hindi equivalent.

When I married my husband, we were both Mormon, however I had converted to the Church as a young adult. My mother’s side of the family (who are culturally Catholic) refused to speak with my husband at family functions and boycotted our wedding. Indeed, my own marriage might now be considered as an interfaith marriage, with each of us losing our faith in the LDS Church and taking divergent faith paths. I’ve left the LDS Church and now consider myself a post-Mormon liberal Catholic, returning to the faith of my mothers (since Catholicism in America is largely passed down matriarchally). My husband is an agnostic atheist who remains actively Mormon: regularly attending his meetings and ‘magnifying’ his calling, held in the church by the faith of his fathers. My family is urging me to do what my responsibility as a Catholic mother would be: to baptize my son Catholic and raise him in the Catholic Church.

And so it goes, and so it goes. Its remarkable how adherents of all faiths claim that God will only recognize marriage in their church.

Through it all, my husband and I have retained enormous respect for each other and our religious decisions, as well as the effect that those decisions have on our son. I think respect for each other is really the only way such marriages can survive. My husband’s loss of belief was founded in his respect for me: Trusting that my reasoning was sound, he wanted to determine for himself what validity there was in my conclusions. Obviously, we came to different end-points, but part of respect is learning to accept (and even welcome) differences of opinion and conclusion.

My questions for the readership are these:

• What are your stories?
• How can a couple who finds themselves in a Mormon interfaith marriage make the relationship work?
• Is it possible to maintain a believing Mormon/non-believer relationship?
• If so, what components are required?

“There is no place that can take away the happiness of a man, nor yet his virtue or wisdom. Anaxagoras, indeed, wrote on the squaring of the circle while in prison.”

-Plutarch

The basic puzzle is this: Using only a square, a compass, a straight edge and a writing stick, create a square with the same circumference or area as a circle. It has to be done in a finite number of steps.  You can not measure it numerically (with a ruler). It all has to be done through proportion and true principles using four unmarked tools.

It’s a geometry puzzle with meanings, here are some basic interpretations.

Right-Angled Square: This represents logic and law.  It is associated with the head and mind.  It is left thinking.

..

Compass: Used for making circles.  This represents feeling and intuition, the emotional mind.  It is associated with the heart.  It is right thinking.

.

..

Writing Stick: This represents our desire, our appetites, what we hunger for, the energy and will that drives action (like drawing and working a puzzle).  It could also be called faith in its verb form.  It is associated with the belly, the source of hunger and desire.

.

..

Straight Edge: This represents precision, exactness and a division between opposites (good/evil, dark/light, etc.).  It represents a decision, a commitment and an action that separates thinking from doing.  The knee divides the upper leg from the lower leg, and the leg is symbolic of walking a path towards a destination.  A straight line represents boundaries..

..

.

A square shape is symbolic of the “four corners” of the earth, the physical world, the tangible, the rational, our body, our material experience and the absolute of truth.  It represents that which is defined and the finite..

…

.

A circle shape is symbolic of the heavens, the spiritual world, the intangible, the irrational or transcendental, that which surrounds and embraces our spirit and ideal potential.  It represents that which is beyond definition, the eternal and infinite..

…

Squaring the Circle asks the initiate to reconcile the circle with the square, and through that process grow and receive wisdom. Can you reconcile the mind and the heart? Can you combine heaven and earth to find a place where they meet? Can you balance perfectly your intellect with your emotions to find a solution? How does your spirit and body combine to become one?  Where is the boundary between justice and mercy?  These are the questions answered through pondering and meditating on solutions to the puzzle.

It is said that all truth (a square) can be circumscribed (a circle) into one great whole (perfection and enlightenment).

The answers to Squaring the Circle will get you past the stumbling blocks, like gate keepers inside your soul, that prevent you from entering through the veil of mortality to your kingdom as a returning champion, a queen or king, the victorious hero from an epic quest.

Our contemporary modern society has moved away from metaphorical expression like this.  We are often not comfortable working in symbol when it comes to the spiritual.  If things aren’t factually true (such as the details of a myth), then they are false and should be discarded.  We find artistic and religious metaphor silly, even pointless in our materialistic, technician-oriented culture.  Left-brained labels and icons define all by putting things into neat boxes but leave out what the right brain intuits through relationship and proportion.  If only there was a way to preserve this exercise of Squaring the Circle in a new religious framework, a way to re-purpose it for the modern world, many could benefit from such a metaphorical hero’s quest in their life journey.  Someone would probably want to borrow from the ancients and from traditions handed down over the ages, since those that came before us already did so much work.  It would be wasteful to reinvent the wheel completely from scratch, I would think. *wink*

-Brian Johnston, www.staylds.com

Discuss how your discussion of the first lesson in the manual went.

Did you discuss how almost all astronomers are atheists, the difference between denotation and connotation or that beer is probably from God, even thought it tastes terrible?

What would you like to say over at:

http://ldsmediatalk.com/2010/01/24/gospel-principles-class-member-survey/ but would rather say here?

• Growing out “forelocks” as Hasidic Jews do.
• Eschewing technology as the Amish do.
• 7th Day Adventists considering Saturday as the Sabbath.
• Celibacy among priests and nuns of the Catholic faith.
• Jews not eating shellfish or pork.
• Muslim women wearing the hajib or burka.
• Scientology – where do I start? (not technically a religion, but you get the point)

It’s easy to distinguish the “bizarre” from the “true” when considering other faiths because we tend to think that the things we have in common are “true” but the ones we don’t are “bizarre” and can be dismissed.  The same holds true when Mormonism is viewed from someone on the outside, unfamiliar with our practices.  Consider how the following things look to outsiders:  Word of Wisdom, garments, fasting monthly, paying 10% in tithing, the temple, not seeing R-rated movies, polygamy, and Sabbath day observance.  Which  of these are “true” and which are “bizarre”?

Generally, a practice is justified using one of the following means:

• There is an underlying principle that drives the practice. This can be tricky, though, and different people may accept different underlying principles.  Consider the following possible justifications for the Word of Wisdom:
  • A health code.  Tobacco has been shown to be unhealthy, so one could say that the Word of Wisdom is a health code.  However, alcohol, tea and coffee have not been shown to be unhealthy (users of these substances don’t have significantly shorter life spans, for example), so it could be difficult to convince outsiders that this is a “true” principle on the grounds of being a heavenly health code.  Also, the WoW does not outlaw some more clearcut unhealthy practices like eating too much fatty fried foods.
  • Addiction Avoidance.  The principle could be that there should be moderation in all things and because some people become addicted to these substances, this is how to preserve one’s ability to choose.  But because this is not true of all people, it’s kind of a shotgun principle that results in abstinence for all that only benefits a few.
  • Spiritual enlightenment.  As RSR pointed out, JS’s view of the WoW was that it would foster spiritual enlightenment.  Of course, since it was not widely adopted until much later, this calls the practice into question.
• Secret or revealed knowledge.  One justification for unique practices is that it’s touted as “secret” or “restored” or “revealed” knowledge.  The “we don’t know” defense might fall into this category if the assumption is that the practice was revealed, but God’s ways are too mysterious for our limited human understanding.  In the latter case, the “defense” of the practice is really just an assertion and may sound illogical to outsiders not prone to believe in revelation.
• Symbolic meaning.  Some justifications for unique practices are that they have a symbolic meaning intended to teach adherents through allegory.  Sometimes this is used in conjunction with a “revelation” defense to bolster a difficult to explain justification.  While no one would dispute that circumcision has a “symbolic” purpose, early adult convert Christians were naturally reluctant to adopt this Jewish symbolic practice, which created a big division in the early Christian church.
• Proof.  There is generally an underlying assumption that the unique element is ultimately “provable,” or at least so adherents believe.  IOW, adherents would believe that ultimately the “truth” of the practice will be revealed, either in this life (born out by science, for example) or the one to come (when God says, “Yep, that was my idea!”).

OTOH, a practice might also serve a purpose to create sociological benefit by defining the community or making “a peculiar people.”  If these elements are more “bizarre” or unique to create boundaries between groups and not necessarily based in truth, they may exist primarily for sociological reasons:

• To identify who is in and who is out of the group.
• To control the weak members of the organization and keep them in line.  This makes the group more easily identifiable for admirable traits and aids missionary efforts.
• To discourage intermarriage outside the group.
• To provide an Abrahamic test of faith to new adherents and to foster loyalty through arbitrary requirements.

The tricky thing is that it’s not always cut & dried whether a unique practice is based in truth or is just there to reinforce group boundaries.  Here are some possible classifications for unique practices.

1. Justifiable / truth-based.  There is a clear, easily explained justification for the practice that is based in true, verifiable events.
   • Rule of thumb:  If you explain the practice, you find your logic convincing.
2. Partially justifiable / principle-linked.  There is a justification or a link to a principle that can be used to explain the practice, but it is not self-evident and probably sounds a little weird to outsiders.  Others might consider the justification unconvincing or weak.
   • Ergo:  You find the logic of the practice partly convincing, but partly weak.  You have to make up what is lacking in logic in faith or suspension of disbelief or only accept the practice partially.
3. Bizarre / unjustifiable / faith-based.  There’s really no justification or explanation that makes any kind of logical sense to non-adherents or non-believers.  Trying to explain the practice leaves one tongue-tied and feeling a bit silly.

• IOW:  You neither have a convincing explanation for the practice, nor do you buy the ones you’ve heard.  You may suspect the practice primarily exists for sociological reasons, to make us a “peculiar” people.

Of course the other difficulty is that someone may have what they feel is a good explanation for a practice, but another adherent may not buy it or believe it or may find it weak, so there’s a good deal of subjectivity.  And subjectivity means it’s a perfect time for a poll!  For each of the below unique Mormon practices, please choose whether you think it is True, Partially Justifiable or merely Bizarre.  Be honest!  (I apologize in advance if my descriptions of what might constitute a true, partially justifiable or bizarre reason don’t work for you individually – as I said, lots of subjectivity involved here!)

So, what do you think are some of the difficult to justify practices, from your perspective?  Are there some I didn’t include here?  Do you see value in this kind of boundary definition or do you think all religious practices should have logical justification or be discarded?  Does your lack of justification for an individual practice make you less committed to the practice?  Does it impact your religious devotion overall?  Were you surprised by some of your answers?  Discuss.

I have often thought that had I not joined the Church at age 19 I would have liked to have joined a kibbutz in Israel, or to have lived on “the Farm” in Tennessee (back when it was more hippie-like), or at least to have been a part of an intentional community. As I began investigating the LDS Church, and in particular reading the passages in Moses under consideration in our Sunday School Lesson #5, I was drawn to the strong emphasis on cooperative community which began under the direction of Joseph Smith and continued in Utah under Brigham Young and survived even to the present day.  I expected to be instructed in the principles of consecration and called upon to live them more and more as the “latter day” rolled on.

Thirty years later, I’ve been disappointed.

We do have our temple covenants to consecrate our time, talents and means to the Church in order to establish Zion.  Most twenty-first century Latter-day Saints would say that this Law of Consecration is very different than the “United Order” experiments which were undertaken in various ways in the early days of the Church.  We can live the Law of Consecration, they say, by generous payment of our tithes and offerings, and serving in the Church.  But here’s where my fundamentalist streak comes out.  All around me I see Mormons who are saturated in capitalism and as far as can be from my conception of the Enoch-founded City of Zion.  I long to experience an Orderville, a Bunkerville, or even a  Morley farm.  I’m inspired by early accounts of the communitarianism of Jackson County, and I share the bit of longing which resides deep in almost every Latter-day Saint heart to return there in preparation for the Millennium.  Where is our Brigham City, our Kingston, our Kanab?  Even ZCMI and most of our welfare farms have slowly passed away.  Is D&C 42 no longer applicable in our modern world?

Additional Mormon folklore is fascinating for me to peruse as I compare my desires for utopia with those of the early Saints. The Autobiography of George Laub, for example, elucidates the early view of some Mormons that Zion was taken up slowly into heaven, remaining visible in the distance for quite some time. Thus, one of the purposes for building the Tower of Babel was to attempt to reach this higher state:

“Now I will tell the designs of building the tower of Bable. It was designed to goe to the city of Enoch, for the veil was not yet so thick that it hid it from their Sight. So they concluded to goe to the City of Enoch, for God gave him place above this impure Earth. For he could breath a pure air & him and his City was taken, for God provided a better place for him for they was pure in heart. For it is the pure in heart that causes Zion to be & the time will come again to meet, that Enoch and his city will come again to meet our city & his people, our people, & the Air will be pure & the Lord will be in our midst for Ever.”

Sometimes I feel positively Nimrod-ish — coveting that city in the air and yet feeling the pull of the fleshly Babel.

It seems I’m not the only Latter-day Saint who is drawn into flights of fancy when contemplating the story of Enoch and his city.  Here’s another speculation:

“The people, and the city, and the foundations of the earth on which it stood, had partaken of so much of the immortal elements, bestowed upon them by God through the teachings of Enoch, that it became philosophically impossible for them to remain any longer upon the earth; consequently, Enoch and his people, with the city which they occupied, and the foundations on which it stood, with a large piece of earth immediately connected with the foundations and the city, had assumed an aerial position within the limits of our solar system; and this in consequence of their faith.” (History of the Organization of the Seventies, Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1878, p. 11.)

The image is deeply moving — what an empty place is left on the earth with the fleeing of Zion !  As well,  there’s an empty place in our Mormon teachings when we take away the “United Order” conception of  the Law of Consecration.

As we cover these scripture passages in upcoming Sunday School classes, are you feeling satisfied with the efforts that the twenty-first century Church is making to live the Law of Consecration by tithes and offerings, humanitarian services, and a few  projects such as the Perpetual Education Fund?  Or do you miss the days of closer member involvement and hands-on work with area welfare farms, cattle ranches, and peanut-butter factories?  Dare I ask — do you ever cast an eye toward Short Creek and their “house built in a day?”  Every once in a while, like me, do you get an urge to see if you are made of celestial material by marching in to your Bishop’s office and throwing down your bank card, the deed to your house and title to your car?

All of its missionaries are reported to be safe, and the church is using nine meeting houses to provide shelter for members and an even larger number of non-members. There have been casualties among the membership, however.

The immediate need in Haiti is, of course, for emergency supplies and medicines, which the church is attempting to help provide. The news releases also indicate that the church will gradually move to assistance for reconstruction, expecting to stay involved with the effort for up to a year or more.

The second largest denomination of the Restoration, the Community of Christ, had embedded their ministry more deeply in the Haitian education system as a long term strategy for Christian ministry in that part of the world. CofChrist has increasingly tended over the last half-century to emphasize Zion-building, as seen through focusing on peace and justice issues in the present, over discussions of personal salvation. As a result, the work of the CofChrist in Haiti has been hard hit by the earthquake.

This approach has not been limited to the Community of Christ, and so a number of humanitarian ministries are looking beyond the immediate crisis and wondering about long term prospects for the country. As a front page Washington Post story by William Booth and Scott Wilson put it on January 23:

Schools’ Collapse Leaves Haiti’s Future in Rubble

The earthquake has crushed what many deem the only path to a better life in the impoverished country.

Of the many things taken from this city [Port-au-Prince] by the earthquake, few are as threatening to Haiti’s future as the near destruction of a school system viewed across society here as the only path to a better life.

Education is as precious as water in Haiti. The ruined capital was filled with parochial and secular schools built on the strict French model, many affordable even to the poorest parents, who struggled to pay a few dollars a week in tuition…

Now there are no schools. Education officials here estimate that the quake erased thousands of campuses, and at least 75% of those in the capital lie in ruins… Nearly every block has one, with many meeting in multiple sessions into the evening. …the debris-filled sites where they once stood are the places that smell the strongest of death. They were filled with children.

Information from the CofChrist is probably typical for other religious ministries in Haiti. The denomination primarily worked through a charity, Outreach International , created by church members several decades ago that had been able to build and maintain — even through years of political instability in the country — a network of ninety schools enrolling 9000 students. (That number is not impressive until you realize that the Community of Christ has only about 140,000 known, baptized members in the entire US and Canada.)

On January 19, Outreach International reported, almost defiantly:

Outreach International’s Haiti school children, staff and facilities are so severely impacted with loss of life and destroyed buildings that the organization cannot come close to accounting for extent of loss.

Matthew Naylor, Outreach International President, received an email today from Michel Rosier, Outreach International schools network director stating, “It is difficult and even painful to give you a detailed report on the Haitian situation. I thank you so much for your extreme concern for the Haitian people.”

With a teacher staff of 300+, Rosier and another staff member, Augustin Derat, executive director for the schools programs, are the only two staff accounted for. Both of them, along with their families, are living on the streets.

Early reports indicate that 7 of 12 schools which have been inspected are destroyed and the rest seriously damaged. There are at least 20 schools in the affected area. Rescue efforts at one school have saved 7 students from the rubble. Rosier states, nothing can be done for the others trapped.

With the Outreach International schools network so badly damaged, initial support for relief efforts has been made through Doctors Without Borders (MSF) located in Port-au-Prince, who will supply the type of immediate relief requested by our staff members on the ground.

Naylor promises, Outreach International will continue to invest in the long-term development in Haiti. We pledge to remain with the surviving children, families, and staff in order to put their lives back together. We will stay for as long as it takes. This is where the bulk of our resources will go.

I am sure that reader’s here have already made initial decisions about how much and in what ways they wish to help Haiti. However, I’d like to pose some more strategic questions that will still be relevant as the emergency evolves further:

How should our churches (and our peoples) give relative priority to our notions of the evangelistic and Zion-building enterprises?

Does the elevation of “care of the poor and needy” within the LDS “purposes” change their personal response in how they give time and money? Does the setback to the school programs in Haiti change how Community of Christ members allocate their giving?

How should the churches allocate the proportion of their support among their own people and ministries and among the general population affected by the crisis?

Is the best strategy for each church to focus massive resources on emergencies as they happen, wherever they happen (knowing that they will need to move on to some other emergency after a year or so, unfortunately)? Or is it better to build long term programs that, also unfortunately, may have to be built again and again?

How do the churches best coordinate with other religious and humanitarian agencies in ways that are faithful to the two denominations’ separate understandings of the meaning of the Restoration?

How do we integrate our sense of the Spirit calling us personally with the task of our churches and other ministries?

Ash argues that we commit spiritual murder when we destroy the testimony of another person.  He argues that our sins can do this and thus he believes Alma’s counsel to his son is to help him see the damage that he has caused, ‘for when [the Zoramites] saw your conduct they would not believe in my [Alma’s] words’ (see Al 39:11).

Ash argues that there two things people need to wary of, if they are to avoid committing this sin.  First, our actions, like Corianton, can destroy the testimony of another.  Second, is sharing information with people that might damage their faith, like ‘the stickier parts of early LDS Church history or scriptural difficulties’ [1].  Now Ash also notes that the intent’s of our hearts are what is important when it comes to deciding who is guilty.  So Richard Bushman is not guilty of spiritual murder, but presumably Fawn Brodie might be and the Tanners are certainly in trouble.

Yet, although I accept his interpretation of this passage of scripture I am not sure I can fully accept how he then goes on to define spiritual murder.  For example, when are our motives ever directed by one factor?  We are often influenced by a multiplicity of ideas whenever we do something.  So I am not convinced that we ever wholly desire to do right or wrong.

Further, if the information shared is the same and true regardless of with what intention it is shared, why does this issue of sincerity become a factor at all.  Maffly-Kipp, in another Sunstone article, has argued that issues around sincerity are part of a Protestant theological tradition that seeks to categorise people into the righteous and the unrighteous.  This assumes that only the good or sincere can do Gods work, but the scriptures have examples of people who may not have been ‘righteous’ or ‘sincere’ but who nevertheless were used by God.

Is it possible that Fawn Brodie was directed by God to do what she did?

This question of spiritual murder also raises important questions about how this issue is dealt with within the Church, in relation to Church discipline.  I recall Paul Toscano, when speaking to John Dehlin, asking at his Disciplinary Council that someone ‘show [him] the body count?’  He argues that he was excommunicated on the possibility that what he had written might damage people’s faith.  Now although I would argue that it is difficult to prove that one person has destroyed the faith of another; it seems that the Church would never excommunicate someone because they could have killed someone in doing something dangerous.  Then why are comfortable in excommunicating someone that might damage someone’s faith.

It seems to me we need to careful about how we use this concept, if it is to become something that is used in the Church (again).

Questions:

How would you define spiritual murder?

Should it be necessary to prove spiritual murder before someone is excommunicated?

Notes:

1. Michael R. Ash, The Sin “Next to Murder” in Sunstone, 2006, p. 34, 40.

Hello Mrs. Brooks,

Thank you for your advice, I found it very helpful. I don’t know who she hangs out with, but I would like to get to know them…. If it turns out that she’s not interested, at least I will have made a few friends in the process. I’ll let you know what comes of it. By the way, what are some of the differences between Mormon and Christian beliefs that I should know about? The last thing that I want is to offend someone, especially such a nice girl as her.

Thanks again,

L.M.

Dear L.M.:

What are the differences between Mormons and Christians? That is quite a question. For if you stop right now and listen closely, you will hear a furious click-click-clicking echoing across the reaches of the universe. That’s the sound of thousands of Mormons and non-Mormon Christians who are right at this very moment sitting brows furrowed, shoulders hunched, fingers flying, hammering away at our theological differences. These discussions are sometimes quite neutral, and sometimes polite but pointy-headed, but often they boil down to Mormons insisting “We love Jesus! Very much! Which makes us very Christian!” while evangelical Christians fold their arms and turn up their noses, saying, “No, you are not! And stay the hell away from my Bible College picnic!” When I was your age, L.M., back in the 1980s, many evangelical Christians were quite fired up over this whole Mormons-vs.-Christians thing. My evangelical Christian friend Jeannette always seemed to take special pleasure in reminding me that I believed in the wrong Jesus and that I belonged to a cult. As did the anti-Mormon picketers who showed up at our church on Sundays with placards bearing the same message.

If I had to describe the differences, I would say that non-Mormon Christians love Jesus, while Mormons love Jesus Plus. As in, yes, we read the Bible, plus theBook of Mormon. And, yes, we believe that Jesus’s atonement saves us, and we believe that eternal commitments we make to our families also play a big role in bringing us closer to God. And, yes, we hold basic Christian values like charity, honesty, and morality, plus we also follow some rules of conduct specific to Mormon tradition. And yes, we are baptized after the example of Jesus Christ,plus we also express our commitment to God through a whole other set of ordinances that take place within Mormon temples. From what I’ve seen, it’s theplus part of Mormonism that seems to upset the evangelical Christians like my friend Jeannette and my non-friends the anti-Mormon picketers.

But I can tell that’s not the kind of Christian you are, L.M. You’re a lover, not a fighter. In fact, when I look again at your letter, I sense that what you’re really asking is not a question of theology but of ethics: how not to “offend” the really “nice” Mormon girl of your dreams. You want to know how to conduct yourself so as to respect your Mormon girl’s feelings. Which is actually a very, very discerning way to approach the whole subject, L.M., for the truly wise among us know that religion is far less accurately understood as a set of abstract theological propositions than as an incredibly powerful set of feelings, and that those feelings really matter. (An idea that, sadly, never seemed to occur to my friend Jeannette.)

So, L.M., here is my advice:

Know that most Mormon kids hold to strict rules of conduct, and they feel most comfortable around kids who do the same. You can read all about the standards Mormon youth keep in depth here. But it pretty much boils down to this: no sex (nor anything like unto it), no alcohol, no smoking, no drugs, no coffee (and for some Mormons, no caffeinated sodas), no R-rated movies, no swearing, no porn, no going out with friends on Sunday (except to church events). Mormons also tend to be clean-cut and pretty conservative in their appearance. Be aware that if you have a piercing or wild haircut, that may make your Mormon Girl and her parents a bit nervous, but don’t let that discourage you—especially if you’re willing to stick to rootbeer and make sure everyone on your group date gets home before curfew.

Know too that Mormon girl probably has very strong feelings about being Mormon, feelings she may not be confident she can fully explain. For being Mormon is more than a religion to her—it is a whole way of life: a culture, a family history, perhaps the most fundamental dimension of her being. She may be both eager to share her beliefs with you, and incredibly tender and protective, even defensive, about them, because non-Mormons have sometimes ridiculed Mormon people and our ways. I am confident that you, however, will be able to win her trust. Just listen when she talks. Make it easy for her to live her beliefs and keep her standards. And maybe if you two hit it off, you can bring her to this webpage, and show her that you once wrote a letter to a complete stranger just to find out how to treat a Mormon girl right. And that, L.M., is enough to warm any Mormon girl’s heart.

Do you have a question for Ask Mormon Girl? Get unorthodox answers from an imperfect source by writing to askmormongirl@gmail.com.

Voting for the 2009 Niblets has begun.  You may click the selections to view the links as many times as you wish. Then make your final selection and click the “vote” button. Once you click the “vote” button on each category, you cannot change your vote.  You may make one selection for each poll except the last one; for the write-in category, you may choose up to three selections.  Each person may vote one time. Polls will close at the stroke of midnight on January 31st.

Here we go . . .

“Priests are thus challenged to proclaim the Gospel by employing the latest generation of audiovisual resources — images, videos, animated features, blogs, Web sites — which, alongside traditional means, can open up broad new vistas for dialogue, evangelization and catechesis,” he said.

Apparently, the Pope is even on Facebook.  So, I had to check and see if Pres Monson is there too.  Well, there are some pages on him, but I don’t think he’s officially there.  Perhaps he is, but his 234 fans are quite a bit behind the Pope’s 87,429.

So, it looks like the Catholic  Church is ahead of the Mormons on Facebook, but the blog advice is more than 2 years behind us.  The Newsroom at LDS.org has Elder Ballard’s talk from Dec 15, 2007

Most of you already know that if you have access to the Internet you can start a blog in minutes and begin sharing what you know to be true.  You can download videos from Church and other appropriate sites, including Newsroom at LDS.org, and send them to your friends.  You can write to media sites on the Internet that report on the Church, and voice your views as to the accuracy of the reports.

Did you ever think you’d hear these octogenarians telling us to embrace Facebook and Blogs???  How much of an impact do you think blogs are having on them?

I recently came across this story on the BBC Website and felt that I had to return to Mormon Matters to write a few comments about it.

High Cost of Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism

Over the years I have noticed many similarities between Mormons and other religions, but I never thought I would see a similarity in this context with Judaism. This article addresses some of the main issues that people at Mormon Matters find challenging. Perhaps we, as doubting Mormons are not as alone as we feel.

28 year old, Chani Ovadya, is interviewed about her experience. She does not give an explicit disgruntlement with the community but she does make mention of the fact that she felt more feminine then the community let her be. She says that:

“It was the hardest year of my life, and I didn’t have my parents and family who I love with me, so it was even worse…As a religious woman, the most you can be is a teacher, now I am following my dreams.”

She makes a point that she wants to make the transition easy for her family because she still cared so much for them, but all they could say to her in return is “Why have you killed us?” Jeff Spector told me:

“Children who have left the faith or married outside the faith would be considered dead to the family. The families would rend their clothes and sit Shiva, which is the Jewish mourning period of one week.”

One thing I notice from the accounts is that most people that have left do not openly belittle or degrade the people they have left behind, they still have love for them, they still feel a part of their community though they are caught in this impossible dilemma.

An anthropologist named Sarit Barzilai, who has studied orthodox Jewish communities said:

“In one case she knows of, a father who told his daughter he would rather kill her than see her become secular. She eventually committed suicide.”

This story seems quite harrowing given the fundamentalist strains that can also be found within Mormonism and its affect on our own brothers and sisters in the faith who are caught between worlds.

An example of a young gay Mormon who felt that he was caught between worlds was that of Stuart Matis. Before committing Suicide he wrote to The Daily Universe:

“I implore the students at BYU to re-assess their homophobic feelings…Seek to understand first before you make comments. We have the same needs as you. We desire to love and be loved. We desire to live our lives with happiness. We are not a threat to you or your families.”

The article ends with a very understanding and warm rabbi named Ido Lev. He says:

Generally speaking, a person leaves because we failed in some way in our responsibilities to him. And he hasn’t had a satisfactory life and he is looking for greener pastures elsewhere because it is not good for him here. We take responsibility for this because it should be good for him here…it breaks peoples hearts. I don’t see any reason not to speak to your children. I don’t see any reason not to be there for your children if they need you.”

I urge that we, like Rabbi Lev, seek understanding, compassion and love before judgment. I suplicate that we do not fail in our responsibilities to our brothers and sisters who are caught between worlds. It really is heartbreaking for all who don’t feel they belong. To partly paraphrase Rabbi Lev, “It should be good for everyone in our church” as well, no matter what they believe. They should all feel welcome in our community. Let’s help those who are a part of our communities and who have doubts feel that they DO belong.

A few more nominations have come in by email and will be added as soon as possible.

Voting will start on Monday. Until then, enjoy perusing these Bloggernacle favorites for 2009 and let us know if there are any problems, questions, missing or wonky links, etc.

Best Big Blog

• BCC
• Mormon Matters
• T&S
• FMH

Best group blog

• Feast Upon the Word
• Segullah
• The Exponent
• Red Brick Store
• Faith Promoting Rumor
• Juvenile Instructor
• Millennial Star
• Mormon Mentality
• New Cool Thang
• Nine Moons
• Zelophehad’s Daughters

Best Humorous Blog

• Bishop Gerald Higgins
• Overheard in the Ward
• Spanish Fork 401st Ward
• My Religious Blog

Best Solo Blog

• Clean Cut
• LDS Science Review
• Mormon Heretic
• Dave’s Mormon Inquiry
• Mormon Insights
• The Mormon Therapist
• The Faithful Dissident
• Keepapitchinin
• Mormon Metaphysics

Best New Blog

• Cultural Mormon Cafeteria
• Mormon Church History
• Latter-Day Satyagraha
• The Fire Still Burning
• The Pierian Spring
• Third Wave Mormon
• Junior Ganymede
• As Sistas in Zion

Best Blog Layout/Graphics

• Hieing To Kolob
• Latter-Day Satyagraha
• Dave’s Mormon Inquiry
• Times & Seasons
• Nine Moons
• Sunstone Blog

Best Overall Blogger

• Reese Dixon
• Kevin Barney
• Natalie B.
• Rebecca J.
• J. Nelson Seawright
• J. Stapley
• Tracy M.
• John Hamer
• DMI Dave
• S. Faux
• Andrew Ainsworth
• Rico
• John Williams
• Kathryn Soper
• Jessawhy
• Julie M. Smith
• Kaimi
• ECS
• Ardis Parshall
• MCQ
• Kiskilili
• Lynnette
• Ziff

Best Commenter

• Annegb
• Ardis Parshall
• BBell
• Brian Duffin
• Bridget Jack Meyers
• Chris H.
• CrazyWomanCreek
• Derek
• Douglas Hunter
• Hawkgrrl
• Jacob J.
• Kaimi
• Kristine
• Mark B.
• MFranti
• MikeinWeHo
• Naismith
• Queuno
• Ray
• Steve Evans
• Tatiana

Most Memorable Comment

• Ardis Parshall’s comment #5 on 5 is the Loneliest Number
• Brad’s comment #95 on Are Right-Wing Mormons More Likely
• Bridget Jack Meyers’ comment #16 at Like a Virgin
• Margaret Young’s comment #3 on They Fought as they were Taught

Funniest Thread

• Loving Hitler by Kevin Barney (esp. DKL’s #63)
• Come ye Poets of the Bloggernacle by Karen H.
• The Bloggernacle Song by Bored in Vernal
• Dear Utah by CJ Douglass

Best Post Title

• Adam & Eve: The First TBM and NOM by Andrew Ainsworth
• Like a Virgin by Bored in Vernal
• Enos Envy and Psychospiritual Development by Trailer Trash
• My God is Clean-Shaven by ESO
• So Take the Photographs and Still Frames in Your Mind… by David
• How Wide the Divide…and can we ever Bridget? by Kaimi

Best Humorous Post

• Each Life that Touches Ours (or not) by Rebecca J.
• Comparative Charts by John Hamer
• BCC’s Police Beat #14-19
• We Thank Thee O God for a Profit by Loydo
• Deserving Charity by LaJauna
• A Screwtape Letter on Mormon Politics by John Matos
• Rough Dawn Breaking by Kaimi
• Grounds Crew by Burgess
• 9 Moons Backlist Drama Revealed! by Tom
• A Note to my Buddy, the R-Rated Movie by Rusty

Best Historical Post

• The Milk Strippings Story by John Hamer
• Excommunication as a Function of Rebaptism by J. Stapley
• Toward a General Theory of Apostasy by Brad
• Joseph Smith’s Seeker Uncle by Christopher Smith
• Joseph Smith’s Cane by Mike Reed
• Positive Black History by Mormon Heretic
• Suspending Relief Society by Runtu
• The Evolution of Excommunication by Nate Oman
• Patriarch series by Clair Barrus
• 2 part exploration of Community of Christ historians and historiography by David Howlett
• It Fell to my Lot to Guide the Little Branch by Ardis Parshall
• The Wall Fell by Joyce Brinton Anderson
• Predicting Who Will Be Church President by Ziff

Best Personal Post

• A Study in Contrasts: The Dole by Tracy M.
• Of Sons and Fathers by J. Stapley
• MHA with Darius by Margaret Young
• Parents are People by Kaimi
• Temple by Annegb
• Being that kind of Woman by Heather O.
• Yellow Paper and Red Tape by David
• Finding Optimism by Lamonte
• Thoughts on Death a few days Before Christmas by Susan M.

Best Spiritual Post

• Of Healings, Canes, and Gardens by J. Stapley
• Brothers: A Speculative Drama in One Act by Brad
• How They Eat in Heaven by Kathryn Lynard Soper
• Tesserae of my Faith by Steve Evans
• Circling the Wagons by Tracy M.
• Do We Let the Church Get in the Way of the Gospel? by Andrew Ainsworth
• Gold-Plated Enigma by G.
• My Articles of Faith by Jessawhy
• Blessing My Daughter by Margaret Young
• Tears in Heaven by JA Benson
• The Weight of Heritage by Ben Pratt

Best Doctrinal Post

• There is an end to Race by Brad
• Why Do We Redeem the Dead? by J. Nelson Seawright
• I the Lord am Bound by Sam MB
• Belief Vs. Action by Hawkgrrl
• Compassion for the Unworthy by Kent Larsen
• Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Beautiful by Kaimi
• The Revisionist Reformation by James Olsen
• Noah’s Nakedness and the Curse of Canaan: Gen 9:18-27 by David G.
• Determining Doctrine Using Excell by Dan Ellsworth
• Is Satan Really all that Bad? by Seth
• Inspired Leadership and the Priesthood Ban by MCQ

Best Current Events Post

• Tradeoff: Gay Marriage and Women’s Rights? by J. Nelson Seawright
• Captain Moroni is not a man of God by Brad
• Mormon Hero by Russell Arben Fox
• Church Exempted From SLC Gay Rights Ordinance by Matt Evans
• Gender Roles and Acquaintance Rape by Kaimi
• Cleon Skousen/Ezra Taft Benson/Glenn Beck series by Christopher Jones
• The Conservative Perspective on Glenn Beck by Geoff B.
• Thoughts From Sunstone by MCQ
• Wanna Know What Women Want? (Twilight) by Tracie Lamb

Best Mormon-Themed Podcast

• BCC’s Zeitcast
• Mormon Expression
• A Totally Gay Podcast Silus Grok

Best Book/Article Review

• Amri Brown’s review of The NY Regional Mormon Singles Halloween Dance by Elna Baker
• Ben’s 12-author series on Parley P. Pratt’s Autobiography
• Charles L. Cohen’s review of Laurel Thatcher Ulrich’s legacy and scholarship
• Geoff B’s review of On Being Ill at Ease in the World by Bushman
• Matt B’s review of Lance Allred’s Longshot (scroll down)
• MCQ’s A New Perspective on the Chosen
• Nick Literski’s review of Mormons and Masons by Brown

Best Contribution to or Post about the Bloggernacle

• DKL’s My Hope for the Bloggernacle
• Edje’s Bug Series — see All God’s Creatures Including Mormos
• Kaimi’s Mormon Studies on a Budget
• Kristine’s Music Posts
• MFranti’s tending comments and answering questions and community building at FMH
• MCQ’s The Importance of Defining Your Terms
• Steve Evans’ The Bloggernacle Won’t Save You
• Tracy M. for sharing her life publicly

Best Contribution to Interfaith Dialogue

• Heart Issues for LDS
• I Love Mormons
• Irresistible (Dis)Grace
• Morehead’s Musings
• CleanCut
• LDS & Evangelical Conversations
• Mark Cares Weblog
• Have You Read the Sealed Portion by Rico
• Summa Theologica
• Bridget Jack Meyers at Clobberblog
• Chanson at Letters From A Broad and Main Street Plaza

Write-in Category (Choose 3)

• Best Community: FMH
• Best Doctrinal and Philosophical Speculation: New Cool Thang
• Best Intentions: Follow the Prophet
• Best Marathon Runner: Shelah
• Best Mommy Blog: Dandelion Mama
• Best New Feature: A Mormon Image & Feminist Image
• Best Philosophical Post: Musings on the Multiverse by Ben Pratt
• Best Series: Back Row Questions by J. Nelson Seawright
• Best Series: Nine Moons “5″ series, beginning with this one.
• Best Canadian Blog: Our Thoughts
• Best Visual Post: Bugged by Kaimi
• Best Weekly Feature: Sunday in Outer Blogness
• Best “Moonlighting” Post: Mormon Like Me: Black Saints, Bigots, and Beck by Margaret Young
• Coolest Maps and Diagrams: John Hamer
• Family Life: A Strict Parent by Nicholeen Peck
• Most Aesthetically Pleasing Post: Words and Music by Low by Susan M.
• Most Disturbing: Are New ‘Puritans’ Gaining? by Orson Scott Card
• Most heartbreaking-wrenching-joyous-all-mixed-into-one: John Remy’s excommunication
• Most Postitive Thread at Mormon Matters: Ten LDS Things I’m Thankful For by Hawkgrrl
• Much Ado About Nothing: Men Singing the Melody in Church