Josh Probert, in his talk “Joseph Smith and the Relational Definition of Sin” spoke of the “doctrine” of friendship/fellowship, one of the grand fundamentals of Mormonism. Joseph’s family kingdoms and welding Temple rituals altered the traditional parameters of Christian soteriology. Probert explained that early LDS emphasis on community reoriented the concept of sin and emphasized its effect on relationships. In such a system, the higher the disruption to covenant relationships, the more serious the sin. I confess I have never regarded sin in quite this way before. I have seen sin more as an individual problem, the action of an indulgent self. But I was entranced by Probert’s description, which recognizes that personal journeys might have rippling effects in community. Sin also disrupts one’s relationship to Deity.

The following talk, “All Sin is Relational: Resonances of Mormon and Feminist Theology,” was given by Diedre Green. Green discussed the feminist perspective of viewing the self as always being in community and related it to the LDS paradigm. She spoke of LDS members’ idea of being “saviors” of men — that our own salvation is indeed contingent upon it. The expanded notion of relational sin recognizes that we cannot harm a member of our society without harming the whole. There is a communal impact of discordant relations.  Green also explored feminist theology that there is a difference in feminine and masculine apporaches to sin.  Valerie Saiving, for instance, “contests the traditional notion that pride is the universal sin, arguing that women’s sin of tending to dissolve herself into the agendas of others may go unrecognized—and unredeemed—if it is solely a male subject that is assumed in a doctrine of sin.” Rather than pride as the universal sin, Saiving proposes that for women, sin might appear in the form of giving “too much of herself, so that nothing remains of her own uniqueness.”

These talks got me wondering about a few things.  Does viewing sin as behavior that damages saving relationships reorient our focus to love, as Probert suggests?  This is an exciting way to see the subject, and seems in my mind to be very motivational.  But would it tend to absolve the individual from personal responsibility?  Another question this sparks is whether a relational definition of sin makes us accountable for each other’s sin.  (This might be why Mormons are always into each other’s business!)  If sin is regarded relationally, it would certainly be important to help others in the community to overcome sin.  But how effective can we be in such a pursuit?

Do you think a relational definition of sin might be helpful for Latter-day Saints in their journeys toward godhood?

It is not intentional.  In fact, I have, and would still call myself a feminist.  What are my qualifications for such a preposterous claim?  Well, first I wholeheartedly support equal rights and opportunities for women in all forms within a society.  Second, I was raised by feminist (then-single) Mormon housewife/full-time teacher.  Third, I have studied, support and work with feminist theory and research in my University education.  Fourth, I try to support my wife in her decisions regarding being a working-mum or SAHM.

Yet, none of this did not help realise something.  Lisa described this way, ‘When I got married I really thought that we would be equal partners, and we were.  We really were.  He did as much of the housework as I did, we both worked, we both made money… But as soon as I had a baby I was just shocked at how my world changed and how there was no equality anymore.  I was shocked of how much of that burden fell on me.’

From a different perspective Reese Dixon both glories and laments being able to have only one ‘role’; that of being a mother.

I guess I have failed to see how our relationship is becoming more unequal.  It started out great, I think.  She worked while I was at School and I did the majority of the housework and the cooking.  Shortly after I was married I was called to a position that meant I was out a few evenings of the week; and then things began to change.  A short time later, my calling changed, and I was out more.  We moved, but I kept the same calling, had a baby and I graduated.  We managed that ok, I was home a lot and tried to make sure I would regularly share the different responsibilities.  I was home most of the time during the day and I could do that.  My wife returned to work and I looked after our baby and began my post-graduate study.

Just over a year ago, my calling changed again.  Now I was out nearly every evening and my studies required more time.  We got pregnant again and I began teaching.  Finally another baby arrived.

Recently, there are some weeks that I never cook and rarely clean.  Though I home, I work and so I see the kids but I don’t always get time with them and sometimes I rarely change nappies or help feed.

Now, some might be thinking that if this is how we balance the responsibilities then that is fine.  The issue here is that I am unhappy with this and so is my wife.  The issue is that it is easier for me to allow this pattern to continue and I don’t like that about myself.

It is apparent that the systemic sexism in both the Church and the UK has made it easy for me to live out a patriarchal (not in a good way) existence by drawing me into the public sphere while simultaneously requiring that my wife live her life in private sphere.  That requirement is disseminated through the subtle, pernicious and quiet expectation that my wife will support me in my responsibilities.

I have need to repent for choosing to be acted upon rather than to act against the tide of these social influences.

Watch Here

Isa 45:& I form the light , and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the lord do all the things.
Amo 3:6 Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?
Lam 3:38 Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?
Exo 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
1Sa 16:14 But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him.
1Sa 16:15 And Saul’s servants said unto him, Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee.

Did God Create Evil?

Last week, the following email arrived in the Ask Mormon Girl inbox from a fellow religion writer.

I’ve been following the latest Glenn Beck “social justice” controversy.  Is there a Mormon angle here?

JD

Well, JD, several Mormons have stepped up in the national media to say that Beck’s comments on social justice are not in keeping with the spirit of Mormon belief and practice.  Yesterday, Mormon author Jana Riess published an especially powerful rejoinder to Brother Beck, recalling from the Book of Mormon the beautiful words of that social justice crusader King Benjamin inMosiah 4 (see especially verses 16 – 26).

I’ve even seen it reported that LDS Church leaders called progressive evangelical leader the Rev. Jim Wallis to apologize for Beck’s comments.

Which makes me sad.

Sad to think that the brethren felt even a twinge of responsibility for the former morning zoo radio shock jock who once made a living cavorting with Zippy the Chimp and who now makes a living by comparing do-gooder churches to the likes of Stalin and Hitler.

The fact is that while Mormons may not use the exact words “social justice” (the phrase has Catholic origins), humanitarian service and social welfare programs, including, yes, experiments in wealth redistribution, have a profound place in Mormon history, life, and values.

And although we are the most conservative religion in America, 49% of Mormons polled by the Pew Foundation recently said the government should do more for the needy; 42% disagreed.

If there is a Mormon angle to this story, it is the way that the flaws and missteps of public figures known to be Mormon sometimes get connected back to our much misunderstood Church.

Mormons take credit for lots and lots of things, like the invention of television and the women’s one-piece bathing suit. Heck, last Friday when I took the kids to the new Mormon Battalion Visitors Center here in San Diego, I learned that we even take credit for the Gadsden Purchase.  But should we take responsibility for Glenn Beck?

I have argued elsewhere that after his 1999 conversion Glenn Beck borrowed some ideological and rhetorical elements from Mormon culture for his on-air repertoire.  But Mormonism is not the source of Glenn Beck’s latest antics. (And while we’re at it:  a special note to Bill Maher, Joseph F. Smith is not the reason Mitt Romney got into a dust-up with a fourth-rate rapper on Air Canada.)

The source of Glenn Beck’s latest antics is Glenn Beck’s genius for generating controversy.  After all, Beck didn’t get where he is because he chose a life dedicated to service.  Nope.  Beck is all about building market share and has been since his beginnings back at the morning zoo.

So, readers, what shall we do the next time Glenn Beck acts up?  Apologize?  Hold him accountable?  Ignore him altogether?  Or, perhaps, circulate this little You Tube gem, featuring Glenn and his buddy Zippy the Chimp?

What do you think?

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

Discuss.

This recording forms part of the many testimonies that are available from Wilford Woodruff concerning “the Last Charge,” a council meeting in Nauvoo where the Twelve were given authority to “bear off the kingdom,” and interpreted by President Woodruff to be the foundation of the succession policy of the Church.  Holzapfel’s announcement was that on one of the three wax cylinders upon which the recording was made, the rest of the First Presidency consisting of George Q. Cannon and Joseph F. Smith added their witnesses that they had heard Wilford Woodruff bear his testimony.  We thus have the early voice of another president of the Church, the only recording of Cannon, and the addition of “two or three witnesses” to respond to the succession question.

I guess you’d really have to be a Mormon history afficionado to consider this information a “bombshell.”  There were a select few in the audience who were moved by the revelation, but the majority took the news calmly.  Holzapfel, in contrast, could hardly restrain himself as he built up his presentation and delivered his revelation in the final moments.  He mentioned that he had difficulty waiting the few weeks before the symposium to tell anyone this exciting news.

Interestingly, a point was mentioned in passing which grabbed my attention far more than the recording.  Apparently Holzapfel and some other historians have recently collaborated on an article discussing for the first time the fact that Sidney Rigdon was not present in the morning meetings at the Nauvoo Temple on March 26, 1844, when the Last Charge was given.  This is stunningly important to Mormon history, because it implies that Rigdon was not given the same keys that the rest of the Twelve received at that time.  Not only did he lack the right to succession, but he may not have understood the pattern Joseph presented that day in the same way as the members of the Twelve who were present.

I’m enjoying the Symposium so far, and I’ll be back to summarize some more of the proceedings soon.

Selections from the Book of Moses

Selections from the Book of Moses contains 8 chapters in the PofGP.  It starts with the Moses encountering God “when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain…” (Moses 1:1). This encounter and the subsequent revelations and visions received by Moses fit in the Book of Exodus Chapter 19 starting at verse 3. The chapter documents three separate visits (v3 to v6, v8 to v13 and v20 to v24) that Moses had with “the Lord,” presumed to be Jehovah rather than Heavenly Father even though the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the beginning of verse 3. All subsequent references are to Jehovah.

The chapters of the Book of Moses do not indicated separate encounters.

The remaining chapters describe God’s revealing to Moses:

• The entire creation story
• How Satan become the devil
• The fall of Adam and Eve
• The story of Cain and Abel
• The story of Enoch and the City of Enoch
• Noah and the preparation before the flood.

As well as these key gospel principles:

• The role and mission of Jesus Christ.
• The role of Satan.
• How the fall of Adam effects mankind
• The nature of man.
• Gospel of Jesus Christ was taught in the beginning.
• God’s ways versus man’s ways.
• The priesthood.
• Covenants.

The Selections from the Book of Moses are the replacement for the beginning chapters of Genesis in the JST. But, in the PofGP, the story ends rather abruptly at Chapter 8:30 with “And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.”

This corresponding spot in Genesis is Gen 6:13. Why did it end there?

Well, according to Alan K. Parrish writing in “Studies in Scripture, Vol. 2: The Pearl of Great Price” edited by Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson,

“Under the direction of Elder Orson Pratt, the 1878 committee assigned to revise the Pearl of Great Price for the general church membership used the 1867 edition of the Inspired Version of the Holy Scriptures, published by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was necessary to bring the Moses material to an end at some point. The flood, being so extensive an act, seemed to provide a convenient termination point.”

So, basically “we had to stop somewhere.”  If you have a copy of the JST (published by the RLDS, now Community of Christ), you will find that there are more changes made to the remainder of the Genesis account. The LDS edition of the Bible has most of them as footnotes or in the back under the JST section.

One of the interesting changes that Joseph Smith made was covered in a recent lesson.

The Genesis account of the story of Rebekah and Isaac has the servant of Abraham putting his hand under the thigh of Abraham as part of an oath taking to accomplish the mission of finding Isaac a wife.  (Gen 24:2). The JST corrects that to say “hand” instead of thigh (As in: “Put forth I pray thee thy hand under my hand.” JST Gen 24:2). Which makes sense except for the fact that “Israel says to Joseph exactly what Abraham says to Eliezer, “Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh.” (Genesis 47:29) Perhaps the idea was for Abraham to hold Eliezer’s hand under his hand and against his thigh.”  Joseph Smith did not “correct” that verse.

“The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says the purpose of this custom was to relate the oath-taker to the source of life in the other person. Given the nature of Eliezer’s task, this must have been an appropriate way to swear the oath: Eliezer was to make a journey to see that Abraham would have descendants under the covenant.” (Sandra Packard, Dennis Packard, Feasting upon the Word, 1981, from Gospellink.com)

The Book of Abraham

Many, many things have been written about the Book of Abraham and its origin, so I’ll not rehash them here.  Except to point out that the Book of Abraham is purported to be a translation of Papyri acquired by Joseph Smith in 1835.  Published in the Times and Seasons for March 5, 1842 (vol. 3, p. 704) was “A translation of some ancient Records, from the Catacombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.” These writings were included as part of the Pearl of Great Price, which was canonized as Scripture by the common consent of the church in General Conference on October 10, 1880. The phrase “purported to be” was removed.

The Book of Abraham, consisting of 5 chapters, contains the writings of the Prophet Abraham while he was in Egypt and, much as the Book of Moses does, documents Abraham’s direct encounters with God and what was revealed to him by God. The first Chapter chronicles Abraham’s journey from Ur of Chaldea, the land of his birth to Haran. Chapters 2 through 5 documents Abraham visits with Jehovah and his learning about the creation of the world up through Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

The Book of Abraham adds to the LDS canon of scripture and gospel principles in the following ways:

• Premortal Councils held
• Foreordination
• Nature of Premortal Spirits
• The Heavens, including the concept of Kolob and the relationship to Christ
• The concept that God had a Father

The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible

Beginning in June of 1830, Joseph Smith began a project to revise portions of the King James Version of the Bible to restore “plain and precious things taken away.” (1 Nephi 13:28). The motivation for this work was largely gained through the work of translation of the Book of Mormon and Joseph’s encounters with prophets like Moroni, whose recitations of various scriptural verses were different than the rendering in the KJV version of the Bible.

Starting with the first chapter of Genesis, moving though both the Old and New Testaments, the Prophet provided embellishments, corrections, word changes and even some significant additions to the Bible. (See Joseph Smith-Mathew and Book of Moses in the PofGP). The translation efforts culminated in 1833.  But it appears that Joseph continued revisions up to his death in June of 1844. The Prophet used his translations of the Bible in the Lectures on Faith as well as publishing excerpts in the “Evening and Morning Star” and “Times and Seasons.”

The JST has never been formally published by the LDS Church has Church leaders were convinced that Joseph had not finished the work on the scriptures.

However, the RLDS (now, CofC) published the JST in 1867 as “The Holy Scriptures.” Subsequent editions included the words “Inspired Version.” The latest edition, published in 1974 is thought to be the most accurate.

The LDS Church did incorporate the JST into its own edition of the KJV published in 1979 using footnotes where a few words were changed or added, and an extended JST section in the rear of the Bible for longer passages. The Book of Moses and Joseph Smith – Matthew remained in the PofGP.

Process of Translation

Joseph Smith was not schooled in ancient languages or possessed early manuscripts of the scriptures. He did have the Egyptian Papyri and the gold plates of the Book of Mormon. So just how did he translate (which is the word used most often) these ancient records and produce the PofGP books and the JST?

According to the preface to the Book of Mormon, it was “To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof… The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.“ (Preface Title Page 1).

In spite of having the physical plates in his presence and, in spite of paintings and pictures drawn to the contrary, Joseph did not “translate” the book as we would understand the translation process. It was by revelation and by the “gift and power of God.”

The same is true of the other books we are discussing as well as the revelations given in the Doctrine and Covenants. They were given to Joseph through revelation, not by scholarly translation. Even the Book of Abraham was given in this manner. The Prophet never fully explained how he received these translations, but we can surmise it was in the manner after the Book of Mormon.

One of the most troubling aspects for some critics of the Church is to understand this concept as it applies to the Book of Abraham. Since the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York discovered some of the Papyri reported to have belonged to Joseph Smith, critics have hammered away at the authenticity of the Book of Abraham since the fragments found did not represent the same text as the Book of Abraham. According to the Church Press Release at the time (November 27, 1967), “The collection presented to the Church today is only a part of the papyri which Joseph Smith had in his possession. “ The remainder was presumed lost in the Great Chicago fire of 1871.

The bottom line is this, it all comes down to the belief that Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God or not. If he was a Prophet and able to receive revelation from God and thus able to provide these revelations and scriptures, then we should be satisfied it comes from God and is authentic.

If we don’t believe that Joseph was a Prophet, then all bets are off as to the value of these additional scriptures at all.

Given the fact that questions about Book of Mormon archeology and historicity will likely never cease — can you ever see a Book of Mormon, or even an LDS version of the Bible being released like this?  Even 100 or 200 years from now?

Before you answer, remember that Jews 50 years ago probably could never have imagined this either.  Yet SOMEHOW they still retain 1.5 million church members.  Amazing.

Thoughts?  Dreams?

Lesson 11 in the Old Testament manual employs several stories from Genesis 34-39 to develop the theme of sexual morality. Joseph’s actions embody the “Lord’s standards” for morality and are contrasted with the actions of Shechem, Reuben, and Judah. You may notice that the featured characters in the lesson are all male. What shall a woman do with a lesson like this? I think the idea is for women to identify with Joseph — to be virtuous when facing temptation. But Joseph is a man, his responses are male-oriented, and intentionally or not this approach will tend to render the women in your Sunday School classroom invisible.  Consideration of the female archetypes found within these chapters may yield some surprising insights.

As feminists might point out, a patriarchal “virgin/whore” stereotype divides and traps women on one side or the other.  Yet this is how our lesson is developed with regard to the female characters.  Joseph’s encounter with the wife of Potiphar introduces us to “The Whore.”  This nameless woman casts her eyes upon Joseph, and day after day entreats him to lie with her.  In a final, dramatic scene, she grabs his clothing and tears it from his body as he pulls away from her and runs off.  Then she lies and accuses him of trying to rape her.

In the next scriptural passage the lesson covers, we meet Dinah, “The Virgin.”  As with most archetypal women figures, Dinah is shadowed and one-dimensional.  She is described as a daughter and a sister to be protected and avenged by her father and brothers. She is “defiled” by Shechem, a young man of highborn status from a neighboring town.  We are not told how she feels about this lover, whose “soul clave unto [her]” and who desired to marry her.  The lesson material tells us that Shechem did not truly love Dinah, or else he would not have defiled her.  However, Genesis 34 describes his offer to pay any amount for a dowry, and his willingness to join with her people, submit to circumcision, and convince all of the men in his town to do the same. In my eyes he is a tragic and romantic figure.  I wish there was more information available about Dinah’s response to this man. But the lack of detail is necessary to preserve the asexual, archetypal element of the deflowered virgin in the story.

Perhaps it is an unconscious arrangement for the writers of this lesson to have placed these two bilateral female archetypes side by side in the lesson material, but if so, it is all the more significant.  Archetypes are elementary ideas stemming from the unconscious.  The danger in including only these two women in the lesson is that they are both powerless.  Dinah the virgin is a victim of a powerful male, and Mrs. Potiphar the whore is also rendered powerless by the virtuous Joseph who rejects her advances.  Males in the stories are shown as individuals with the ability and strength to choose and control their sexual and moral options.

One might feel constrained by the material on women available in the scriptures, however, there exists within these passages a third woman who might prove to be a foil to our figurative virgin and whore.  Let us examine the lessons taught by the actions of Tamar in Genesis 38.  Tamar is conspicuously left out of the lesson manual, though this chapter is included as part of the scripture block. Judah’s actions are briefly contrasted with the faithfulness of Joseph.  Going back to the scripture passage, we read that Judah chose Tamar to be the wife of his eldest son, Er.  When Er died, custom dictated that the next son, Onan would marry her and provide her with children.  Onan’s refusal to properly execute his responsibility resulted in his death, and the next son, Shelah, was not old enough to marry.  Judah told Tamar to go and live with her parents until Shelah was grown, and then promptly forgot or ignored the family’s responsibilities to the widow.  Several years later, Tamar conceived a plan to remind Judah of these things.

Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 shows that the law was on her side, and Tamar could have reported Judah to the authorities, legally loosened Judah’s shoe, and spit in his face.  But she was smarter than that.  In contrast to the other women acknowledged in the lesson, Tamar deliberately used her sexuality to affect her destiny.  Despite the fact that she lived in a culture where women had little power or choice over their own circumstances, she seized her opportunities and was rewarded for so doing.  If we reduce this gospel lesson down to following or not following a strict standard of sexual morality, we miss the potent, powerful, and purposeful choice of Tamar to initiate sex with her father-in-law.  This choice is presented in the scriptures as a faithful action.  The nuance and meaning of the word “righteous” as Judah uses it to describe Tamar is very significant in understanding whether her actions were justified. The Hebrew word used is tsadaq, “to be just or righteous.” This word and its derivatives are used hundreds of times throughout the Old Testament. It is used to describe the righteousness of Noah (Gen. 7:1), the Law (Deu. 4:8), David (1 Sam. 24:17), and even Jehovah (2 Chr. 12:6). The meaning is thus: correct, right before God, or justified, in a very strong sense of the word righteous. Tamar was a woman of integrity who struck out in a creative though unorthodox way to fulfill her duty to herself and her family.  Her exploit resulted in twin sons, one of whom would continue the chosen lineage and become the progenitor of the Messiah.  Tamar is a complex human being and one of the few women in the scriptural record who is described in such a rich and nuanced manner.

What is more, the story of Tamar can be nicely dovetailed with a secondary message of Lesson 11, that class members “learn how to make all experiences and circumstances work together for their good.”  Surely Tamar deserves a prominent place in Lesson 11, wherever female members form part of the class population!  Don’t you agree?

As bishop you have had a hard month, lots of problems, meetings, etc.  that took you away from your wife and young family.  Last Friday you had a date night planned with your wife, even had a babysitter lined up, and at the last second you had to cancel due to bishop duties.  Your wife was understandably upset, but did not complain.  When you got home late Friday night you promised her that next Friday would be all hers.

You’ve arranged for your mother to watch the kids, and everything is going to be great.  Your wife is just getting in the car, and as you are walking around the car, you hear the phone ring. You both look at each other, and you stop walking.  Your wife gives you that look.

This very scenario was presented by a GA during a Bishop training meeting I attended. He said it really happened to a bishop he knew. Make sure you tune back for the very surprising outcome given by the GA!

Dear Ask Mormon Girl:

My wife and I are smack dab in the middle of a crisis of faith. We are struggling to give our kids the best of Mormonism. But we do not want our kids being taught things that we feel are untrue or things that we feel will restrict them in their journey to discover themselves and their true potential. And I have nightmares of my daughter going away to BYU marrying a “I’m the head of the household” priesthood holder and before you know it her husband will not allow our grandchildren to see us because we are a bad influence. Did I mention my daughter is only 7? Yeah, maybe we need to relax a little. I am curious if you share similar concerns? Deep down do you really think it is possible to raise your children in the church on your terms and if so how?

Thanks,

Vegas New Order Mormons

Dear Vegas NOMs:

Most days, I experience parenthood as a transcendently mindbending mixture of total responsibility and total helplessness. It’s like the old Saturday’s Warrior lyric: “Who are these children coming down, coming down / like gentle rain through darkened skies?” And if I can’t cajole my six year old into practicing at her drumset every day, how on earth will I ever get her and her sister to adulthood alive, whole, literate, responsible, and happy?

The issue of religious upbringing provokes in me an even greater depth of awe and terror. Because even though my kids are young, I’ve seen enough of this world to know that no child walks exactly the same road of faith his or her parents walked. And no parent can guarantee particular religious outcomes for their children. No parent can.

Still, dear Vegas NOMs, it strikes me that when you write that you “don’t want [your] kids being taught things that [you] feel are untrue,” you are using the passive construction of the verb “to teach.” Might you be undervaluing your own role in the spiritual education of your kids? Don’t. Don’t outsource their spiritual education to anyone or anything, and don’t underestimate the power of your own example.

These little ones, they watch us around the clock: silently observing and absorbing our words, deeds, silences, feelings, reactions—conscious and unconscious. If you are in the middle of a faith transition, or if you are feeling ambivalent, anxious, or conflicted about your Mormonism, it’s likely that your kids can sense it. And yet, since you do want to give them all that is good about our faith, you owe it to yourselves and to them to reclaim what you can feel good about and to make it a joyful, meaningful part of your shared lives. Mormonism is a beautiful, robust, complicated religious tradition. It should be a blessing to you and to them. You can help make it so.

One aspect of traditional Mormon doctrine I love and try to emphasize with my own children is the central importance of seeking one’s own answers and building a sense of what is true through prayer, study, contemplation, and listening to the Spirit. These spiritual tools are as core to the Mormon tradition as the Joseph Smith story. Moreover, they are also basic resources for becoming a responsible adult person of faith. I feel really good about teaching them to my children.

I also try to nourish in my children a positive identification with Mormon tradition by making sure they get plenty of the Mormon stories, places, experiences, and memories that give me joy: pioneer stories, Pioneer Day, visits to family in Utah, trips to Temple Square, community service projects, emergency preparedness, home gardening, family history. I want my girls to have the visual memory of their Jewish father laughing as he helps their crazy Mormon mother load six months’ worth of rice, beans, wheat, and textured vegetable protein in the garage. I want them to know by experience that when someone is really sick, we call the temple and put their name on the prayer roll, or call the home teachers for a priesthood blessing. I want them to have positive experiences with aspects of Mormonism that have brought me happiness, so that they will have these good memories to come home to. For me, this is about giving them a sense of belonging to a tradition, a sense of identity.

Finally, I try to demonstrate respect for varieties of Mormon experience and to give them the most loving, expansive, non-punitive take on Mormonism I can. I want them to see that I do not withhold my affection from people who make more orthodox or less orthodox choices than I do. For consider this: if your daughter knows you fear that she will “run away to BYU and marry an ‘I’m the head of the household’ priesthood holder,” you can bet your Sunstone subscription that as soon as late adolescence hits she will hie directly unto Happy Valley. Which, as you know, is not really such a bad thing. Unless you make it so.

So, take full responsibility for teaching your kids all that you can, and then, yes, relax. Trust that in the company of a merciful God they will sort it out for themselves the best they can. Someday. Whether you like it or not.

And now I’m going to stop lest I give my daughters any more grounds for ridiculing me when they unearth this column ten years from now. (No, honey, you can’t stay out past midnight. Don’t you know the Holy Ghost goes home at midnight? Now go practice your drumset and say your prayers.)

Readers, it’s your turn. Parents, talk (nicely!) about your children; children, talk (nicely!) about your parents. How did your parents raise you? How do you give your kids the good stuff? And how do you deal with your worries about making sure they turn out okay?

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

Quinn argues that during the explosive Church growth of the 1950’s-1970’s the Church attempted to draw upon a number of external influences in making the organization more efficient and effective.  At the same time there was an explosive growth in Church bureaucracy.  This led some to become concerned over the influence and direction of power and authority within the hierarchical structure.

According to Quinn, both J. Reuben Clark Jr. and David O. McKay were concerned that the increasing bureaucratic, financial and organizational burden meant that the GA’s were not able (due to lack of knowledge or expertise) to make decisions that would need to be made.  They would, of necessity, have to rely upon technocrats and other specialists from the various sub-committees at Church Headquarters.  President McKay’s concern was that this movement would involve an ecclesiastical abdication of the God-given authority to led the Church.

This model of Prophetic leadership in temporal, as well as spiritual matters, has a long and varied history in the standard works and has been exemplified by our earliest and most influential leaders.  The first reason therefore that I am unconvinced that there is an alternative to a mixture (even a heavy emphasis) on the bureaucratic, as opposed to the prophetic, in our Church leadership is that theologically they are expected to be able to guide a temporally-situated Church.  Yet, their burden is fraught with a multiplicity of complex challenges that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and others never faced.

John Dehlin rightly notes that within this they have a responsibility to protect the image of the ‘Prophetic Mantle’.  In one sense, therefore, it seems possible that although they believe that as ‘Prophets, Seers and Revelators’ they have a responsibility over the temporal, they also feel a sense of dissatisfaction or dissonance over the types of decisions they have to make.  This is evident by the fact they do not talk about such decisions and even try to mask these processes from the general membership because they feel that such decision-making processes might undermine the image of the ‘Prophetic Mantle’.  I think they are right; it might well have this effect.

Now it is possible to argue that the ‘Prophetic Mantle’ does not need to be protected.  I can sympathise with this position however I believe that the Brethren intentionally present a view of their work which most accurately exemplifies what they expect from their local leaders.  Bishops and Stake Presidents do not make the same type of decisions that might require this legalistic-bureaucractic framework and they therefore expect local leaders to seek the Spirit in dealing with spiritual matters.  I am not convinced that this is disingenuous  but rather sense that they are trying to model the gospel in action to a culturally and intellectually diverse membership.

Therefore, they are in a tough, ecclesiastical bind.  Abdicate the responsibility for the kingdom (to a small or even a large extent) or face the possibility of undermining the ‘Prophetic Mantle’, which I believe they have, and giving scope for local leaders to approach issues in this same legalistic-bureaucractic manner.

I can see why they do what they do because I am not sure I see a valid alternative, theologically or organisationally.  Do you?

Computational stylistics is based on the premise that all authors exhibit subtle, quantifiable stylistic traits that are equivalent to a litereray fingerprint, or wordprint.  The method has been used to investigate other instances of disputed authorship, from Plato to Shakespeare to the Federalist papers.  Analyzing blocks of words from 24 of the Book of Mormon’s ostensible authors, along with nine nineteenth-century writers including Joseph Smith, three statisticians used three statistical techniques (multivariate analysis of variance, cluster analysis, and discriminant analysis) to establish the probability that the various parts of the Book of Mormon were composed by the range of authors suggested by the narrative itself.  They found that all of the sample word blocks exhibit their own “discernable authorship styles (wordprints),” even though these blocks are not clearly demarcated in the text, but are “shuffled and intermixed” throughout the Book of Mormon’s editorially complex narrative structure (wherein alleged authorship shifts some 2.000 times).  Emphasizing the demonstrated resistance of these methods to even deliberate stylistic imitation, they further conclude that “it does not seem possible that Joseph Smith or any other writer could have fabricated a work with 24 or more discernible authorship styles.”  The evidence, they write, is “overwhelming” that the Book of Mormon was not written by Joseph Smith or any of his contemporaries or alleged collaborators they tested for (including Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding).⁴ Asubsequent, even more sophisticated analysis by a Berkeley group concluded that it is “statistically indefensible to propose Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery or Solomon Spaulding as the author of 30,000 words…attributed to Nephi and Alma…The Book of Mormon measures multiauthored, with authorship consistent with its own internal claims.  These results are obtained even though the writings of Nephi and Alma were ‘translated’ by Joseph Smith.”⁵

Ok, let me talk about multivariate analysis of variance, cluster analysis, and discriminant analysis.  These are very advanced graduate level statistical techniques.  Ronald Fisher is a famous English statistician (ok, only famous to statisticians) who pioneered many of these techniques.  Danish Professor Anders Hald said Fisher  “almost single-handedly created the foundations for modern statistical science.”  Fisher died in 1962.  These techniques are really new, are frankly aren’t discussed in any bachelor’s level statistics courses.

Givens book was published in 2002.  From reading this paragraph, one would think wordprint studies are solidly in favor of Mormons.  However, in Dec 2008, Oxford Journals published a new study called “Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification.” I have a master’s degree in statistics, and until I saw this article, I had never heard of a shrunken centroid classification.  I must say I have always been impressed with Wikipedia when it comes to math articles, but Wikipedia doesn’t even have an article on this shrunken centroid classification.  I found this Stanford University article that describes the technique.  Apparently it is used in cancer gene analysis.  The authors of this Book of Mormon authorship article are three Stanford University professors:  Matthew L. Jockers (English), Daniela M. Witten  (Statistics), Craig S. Criddle (Civil and Environmental Engineering).  They claim that “Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).”

(The abstract is found here, but you have to pay $28 to actually view the article.)  FAIR has criticized the methodology of the study, because they didn’t include Joseph Smith as a possible author.  Why isn’t he as likely as Spalding to have written it?  It appears the Stanford professors decided that the true author of the Book of Mormon was one of only seven possible authors:  Oliver Cowdery, Parley P Pratt, Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, Isaiah/Malachi, Joel Barlow, and Henry Longfellow.  Barlow and Longfellow are poets thrown in as control, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that they didn’t match.  Since the Book of Mormon includes writings of Isaiah and Malachi, these portions should easily match, and the Jockers study concludes these portions match.

I guess my biggest problem with Jockers is this.  The corrected abstract refers to a correction on one chapter, “With the corrected data, NSC ranked Rigdon at 0.4626 and Spalding at 0.46525.”  If I am understanding this correctly, these numbers are probabilities.  So the probability that Sidney Rigdon is the real author if this chapter of the Book of Mormon is less 50%–not exactly a ringing endorsement, I’d say.  I’d like to see probabilities of the other chapters, especially the Isaiah and Malachi chapters, which I expect will have a pretty strong correlation.

Now, to be fair, I don’t have probabilities that Givens is referencing–perhaps they are suspect as well.  But I expect that Isaiah and Malachi have much higher probabilities than 0.4626 for Jockers study.  So, what do you think of wordprint studies?

As a result, he taught a number of times on the essential nature of communing with God directly for truth and that anyone who failed to do so was at risk to go astray from where God wanted him or her to be — relying on what others said would not do the task of leading one to truth because everything that was said was flawed.

Of all things, Elder Oaks recent talk at Harvard made me think of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young in the lens of an experience my mother had.

She needed to sign a legal document and have it certified and sent to Greece.  So, she got the document, took it to the embassy in Los Angeles, and had it certified.  The official then typed a translated copy, put the original in a tray in the safe (along with a lot of other documents) and stamped wax and seals on the copy and mailed the copy off to Greece.

In theory, anyone who wanted to verify the document could come back to Los Angeles and compare the typing and the translation for themselves.

Elder Oaks suggested that revelation from prophets was like getting a certified copy and that we had access to God to confirm the meaning and accuracy of the copy.  It struck me that we had not so much the opportunity to do so, as the obligation to do so, much as Brigham Young preached, because the copy necessarily will have some flaws of language, culture and expression that only contact with the author can rectify as to our needs, understanding and comprehension.

To fail to seek God out is to guarantee that we will be misled.  Perhaps only in insignificant ways, perhaps more so (thinking of a translation of a text I studied in college that used the term “valley” when it turns out that the author meant “warm bath.”).  But we can’t know until and unless we seek out God for ourselves.

For me, as to Elder Oaks talk, that meant a convergence of meaning that included my mother, Brigham Young and Joseph Smith.  You probably don’t share my experiences with my mom, the context and meaning you might gain could well be different, as well it should, which is what inspiration and revelation is all about, bringing us to truth in spite of our differences.

Though it’s only an “additional teaching idea” in Lesson 12, Jacob’s ladder has captured my imagination due to some conversations I’ve recently had with Christian evangelicals.

The theme of the ladder to heaven is often used by the Early Church Fathers. Their interpretations of Jacob’s symbolic dream in Genesis 28 are similar to those made by Mormon General Authorities. In the 2nd century, Saint Irenaeus described the Christian Church as the ladder of ascent to God. In the 3rd century Origen explained that there are two ladders in the Christian life; one of which is the ladder that the soul climbs on the earth increasing the virtues. In the 4th century Saint Gregory of Nazianzus spoke of ascending Jacob’s Ladder by successive steps towards excellence, interpreting thus the ladder as an ascetic path, while Saint Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Moses climbed on Jacob’s Ladder to reach the heavens where he entered the tabernacle not made with hands, thus giving to the Ladder a clear mystical meaning. The ascetic interpretation is found also in Saint John Chrysostom who wrote:

“And so mounting as it were by steps, let us get to heaven by a Jacob’s ladder. For the ladder seems to me to signify in a riddle by that vision the gradual ascent by means of virtue, by which it is possible for us to ascend from earth to heaven, not using material steps, but improvement and correction of manners.”

The account of Jacob’s Ladder as an analogy for the spiritual ascetic of life is again found in the classical work Ladder of Divine Ascent by St. John Climacus. The ladder in Jacob’s dream represented a symbolic journey where each of the rungs suggest the steps needed to move upward. Man must climb up one level at a time as he participates in the saving principles and ordinances of the gospel offered by the Lord, who stands at the top. Notice how similar this description is to the quote by Marion G. Romney found in our lesson:

“Jacob realized that the covenants he made with the Lord … were the rungs on the ladder that he himself would have to climb in order to obtain the promised blessings—blessings that would entitle him to enter heaven and associate with the Lord” (“Temples—The Gates to Heaven,” Ensign, Mar. 1971, 16).

***
Later Christian interpretation of Jacob’s ladder is quite different than the early Church fathers, and demonstrates the dichotomy of thought between evangelicals and Mormons on the faith and works issue. In this exegesis, Jesus is seen as being the reality to which the ladder points in that he bridges the gap between heaven and earth. According to Martin Luther, Jacob’s vision of the ladder represented the incarnation of Christ. In the Gospel of John 1:51 there is a clear reference to Jacob’s dream pointing towards Jesus Christ, referred to by his title of the Son of Man:

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Adam Clarke, an early 19th century Methodist theologian and Bible scholar, elaborated upon this verse:

“That by the angels of God ascending and descending, is to be understood, that a perpetual intercourse should now be opened between heaven and earth, through the medium of Christ, who was God manifested in the flesh. Our blessed Lord is represented in his mediatorial capacity as the ambassador of God to men; and the angels ascending and descending upon the Son of Man, is a metaphor taken from the custom of dispatching couriers or messengers from the prince to his ambassador in a foreign court, and from the ambassador back to the prince.”

In this one Biblical symbol we find differing schools of thought over the issue of salvation: One group views the ladder as a way to reach heaven based on their own actions of improvement and obedience to covenants and ordinances. The other group has access to heaven based on the provisions of God through the Mediator, Jesus Christ, who came to earth and became that ladder or stairway for the sinner to reconnect the relationship with God.

In pondering this issue in the past, I have lamented that such a rift exists between our two faith traditions. It often seems to me that we are closer than we think, and that grace and works are both important. Mormons, I explain, emphasize works so much because we fear that if we don’t, the sinner might lapse into laziness or indifference. Christians emphasize the grace aspect of the equation so that no one will mistakenly trust in legalism rather than the Savior for their salvation. Isn’t the truth a balance between Paul and James? However, the evangelicals have labored hard to convince me that salvation must be accepted upon grace alone. Lately I’ve been pondering why I am reluctant to join them in their assurance. I’ve accepted Christ as my Savior, and it certainly would be a lot easier not to worry so much about whether I was paying my tithing, going to the temple regularly, or doing my visiting teaching. But here’s what holds me back: if Jesus offers me the grace they describe, then I’ll be OK whether I’m doing my works or not. But if the Mormon view turns out to be the more accurate description of the will of God for us, I need to be trying my hardest to do all of those works which are in my power.

Am I living my life based on fear rather than faith? Maybe. Will it count against me in the end?  I don’t see how it could.

What’s your take on Jacob’s ladder? Do we walk up, or does God descend to meet us where we are? Can this scriptural metaphor be of any help to us in our faith journey?

One Sunday you notice the missionaries have brought a woman they have been teaching.  You notice right away that she looks very masculine.  The missionaries ask to meet with you during the week and tell you that the woman they brought to church is a transsexual, born a man but now living as a woman.  She has not had any operations but is taking hormones. They say that they cannot baptize her without first presidency approval, and that their mission president is handling the situation. You breathe a sigh a relief that you don’t have to get involved with that.

After a few weeks, you get a few comments from the Sisters in the ward that they feel uncomfortable with this woman attending relief society and using the ladies restroom.

How would your answer change if it was a man (who use to be a woman) and all the questions above were changed for that situation (e.g. he attends priesthood meeting and uses the men’s restroom)?  Discuss.

What is your take on Mormon women’s domination of the blogworld? (I’m thinking about Dooce, Nienie, and Taza and a few others…) I find myself totally addicted to their blogs as well for reasons I can’t quite articulate.

Signed,

JJZ

It’s true, JJZ, that Mormon girls are dominating, well, if not the whole blogworld, at least the 25 – 34 year old college-educated white female demographic. Salt Lake City-based Heather Armstrong’s tell-all Dooce.com gets at least 50,000 visitors a day; a jaw-dropping 1.6 million people follow Dooce on Twitter.  Arizona-based Stephanie Nielson, mother of four, near-fatal plane crash survivor, also pulls heavy traffic on her site Nienie Dialogues, as does Washington D.C.-based ingénue newlywed fashionista Naomi Megan who blogs at Rockstar Diaries.

But oh, JJZ, I’m afraid you know the less-than-half of it.  For impeccably-styled Dooce, Nienie, and Taza are just the popular ones, the Mormon girl bloggers with crossover appeal.  There is an entire Mormon mommy blog underworld (satirized memorably here)  populated by thousands-upon-thousands of snowbound women who right now are popping the Lilo and Stitch DVD into the player one more time just so they can keep the kids occupied long enough to download the latest backgrounds and blinkies from shabbyblogs.com.  And most of their sites log weekly traffic in the single digits.  Sigh.

How to explain this Mormon mommy blog explosion? I have my theories.

First, do not underestimate the bandwith appetite of 25 – 34 year old white college-educated stay-at-home moms, a webdemographic that may just be dominated by our people.  Because when you have three babes under five, your glowing computer screen is a magic escape portal into a much sweeter, less vomit-encrusted version of reality, one festooned with web-ads for unachievable levels of handcrafted cuteness for home and self and child! Giveaways!  Giveaways!  Click! Click! Click!

Second, do not forget the power of Mormon homemaking. For decades upon decades Mormon girls have been verily commanded to make the homeplace a work of art.  Thirty years ago, our aunties were tole painting bonneted geese on wall brackets and stacking them with silk flower arrangements.  Now, Mormon girls craft impeccable digital worlds with camera and pixels, never setting a foot outside the homespace.  Blogging is homemaking 2.0.

But these are just my amateur theories.  For the real story, JJZ, I knew I had to take your question straight to the source:  the Godmother, the Undisputed Heavyweight of the Mommy Blog world, and perhaps the most important Mormon female entrepreneur in history:  Dooce.

Dooce, I asked, why do you rule?

And she wrote:

I was in the right place at the right time, combined with the fact that I’ve written candidly about some crazy events in my life (getting fired for my website, checking myself into a psych ward for postpartum depression), combined with working my *%% off for nine years straight at this.  Plus I understand the medium and how to make it work.

Yes, that’s all true.  But is there a Mormon angle to your ruler-ship?

In church, we were always encouraged to write our own personal and family histories.  Wasn’t journaling drilled into our heads from the moment we could write a word? And my blog has definitely replaced scrap booking, not that I ever engaged in that verb, scrap booking, but now I have a visual history of the last nine years of my life. And my first daughter gets to read about everything from the first six years of her life. There’s also that Mormon pioneer work ethic. Like, hell, if they could trek through snow in Iowa all those months, then I can damn well update my &#%$! website.

So there you have it, JJZ.  The secret to the Mo-girl-blog-domination, straight from the Almighty Dooce Herself:  Journaling. And our Mormon pioneer heritage.  Cue the pioneers!

Thank you, Heather.

And readers, what say you?  Are you a denizen of the mom-bloggernacle? How do you account for Mormon mommy blog domination?

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

Social Networks Are How Humanity Works

As a community, the church is like all other social networks; there are people you like, people you dismiss, people you trust, people who irritate you, and so forth.  Ideas pass from person to person, both good ideas (healthy habits, positive attitudes) and bad ideas (unhealthy habits, negative attitudes).  The benefits of belonging have a lot to do with the people who surround you.  If the social contacts are beneficial, membership is valuable.  If the social contacts are not beneficial, membership can be detrimental (this is one reason prisons are bad social networks if we hope to rehabilitate criminals).

Dirty Little Secret:  Not every social network is beneficial to every person.

Rule #1:  Recognize that it’s a social network.  Choose to be in it.

Weak vs. Strong Connections

Social networks include strong connections (in Facebook, your “friends”) and weak connections (“your friends’ friends” and their friends).  Strong connections create your social norms – they tend to be most influential on your idealogies, views and habits.  But weak connections are also valuable – it’s how we typically meet our spouses or find a new job.  Also, as information flows through our social network (via influential people), we can become susceptible to ideas and habits that originated through weak connections.

Dirty Little Secret:  People often take a passive stance with their relationships.  They may not scrutinize the sources of information (norms) that come to them.  Or they may not make good choices about strong vs. weak connections.

Rule #2:  Choose your strong relationships carefully (and be mindful of the influences of their strong relationships), and use your weak relationships to add to your network.

How Ideas Pass Through a Social Network – Why God has ”Hand”

According to the book, you accept new ideas from people in your network that you admire, people you view as successful or educated.  The people who are influential to you are the ones you consider your closest “friends.”  The people you influence are the ones who view you as their closest “friends.”  Influence flows through social networks, from those perceived to be successful, educated, or wise to those who aspire to be like them.

In an episode of Seinfeld, George laments that he doesn’t have “hand” in the relationship with his girlfriend.  The one with “hand” is the one who is more influential on the other; the one without “hand” is the one who hopes to gain most from the association.  The one with “hand” has all the power and can take the relationship or leave it.

This is like the hierarchy of intelligences described by Joseph Smith in Abraham 3:19 -

• when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.“  So, influence flows from the most intelligent to less intelligent spirits.

So God has the potential for the most influence among all intelligences.  But if you don’t know God, you just have to deal with the smartest mortal people you can find, be they authors, spouses, family members, prophets, talk show hosts or drinking buddies.

Dirty Little Secret:  People sometimes think friendships are equal or that advice from friends is all good since they have your interests at heart.  It’s not all good.

Rule #3:  Understand and define your position in your social network and in your relationships (who has “hand” with you; with whom do you have “hand”?).  IOW, don’t take advice from stupid people or from people who are taking advice from stupid people.

Social Epidemics

Ideas move from person to person through a social network.  These might be useful, productive ideas (“smoking is bad for you,”) or bad, unproductive or unhealthy ideas (“fried food dipped in lard is delicious”).  Likewise, within the church, various doctrinal interpretations operate like social epidemics.  An interpretation is introduced by someone, and that idea spreads if people view it as 1) credible on its own merits, 2) coming from a reliable source, and 3) not contradicted by a better sourced, more convincing argument.   BTW, rejecting bad ideas increases your influence over time as does embracing good ideas.  Look at what has happened to smoker populations over the last 30 years for an example of this.

Dirty Little Secret:  You are always vulnerable to the ideas and social norms of your network, especially if you are unaware that you are.

Rule #4:  Pay attention to how ideas flow in your network; accept the best ideas from the best sources.

Four Types of People in Communities

There are four different personalities that emerge in all societies: collaborators, freeloaders, punishers and loners.  This pattern recurs whenever societies form:

1. Individual loners live in relative isolation or small family groups.
2. Individuals learn that they can achieve more in collaboration.
3. Some individuals in the system (free-loaders) decide they can reap the rewards of the group without participating.
4. Some individuals resent the freeloaders and self-designate as punishers to control the behaviors that are counterproductive to the society’s greater good (at least in their view).

What might these types look like in a church setting?

• Loners.  These folks don’t really participate or interact much, so they are socially neutral.  They may be peripherally associated with the ward (Jack Mormons) or they may attend regularly.  They are more like visitors than members; they give nothing to and take nothing from the organization.
• Collaborators are the “norm” or the “majority.”  These are your average people who try to help others, accept help from them, and wish the community well as an insider.  They both give to and take from the organization.
• Freeloaders may be perpetual takers but not givers.  This could be in the form of taking things like church welfare, member contributions of time to the organization, individual service from others, or spiritual edification without putting equal or greater amounts of the same (service, money, ideas, spirituality) back into the community over time.
• Punishers  are out to define and protect the boundaries of the organization.  They want to say who is in and who is out.  If they are influential, they can convince others to “unfriend” you or to “friend” you.   They want to punish and get rid of the free-loaders.
  • Sometimes they go too far and start to “punish” those who aren’t free-loaders overall, but who are going through a rough period in which they need more than they can contribute.
  • They may also target loners if they mis-assess them as free-loaders due to their low contribution.

Dirty Little Secret:  We need punishers like we need antibodies.  But antibodies unchecked lead to excessive allergies, rejecting things that are not harmful or even that are good.

Rule #5:  Give as much or more than you get.  Don’t freeload.  Ignore punishers if you can, and stay the heck off their radar.  If you get there somehow, make it clear you are not a freeloader.

Can You “Friend” God?

The book posits that “friending” God is actually an effective way to create a broader social network because suddenly all of humanity is the friend of a friend (other believers) or the friend of a friend of a friend (anyone who knows another believer).  It all depends on who you consider to be “God’s friends,” which varies.  Some Christians would say all Christians are “God’s friends,” (although many exclude the types of Christians they don’t like such as Mormons).  IOW, belonging to a religion (friending God) does increase your social network instantly and substantially, and to some extent, you can define how it does that.

Dirty Little Secret:  God may not be a respecter of persons, but religious cultures are, and so is your social network.

Rule #6:  To maximize your religious social network, you have to friend God.  This can be as simple as viewing everyone as connected and being filled with love toward all humanity.

Friending God puts you in a theoretical sibling relationship with all of humanity.  In reality, the connections created are mostly “weak” ones (not direct friends), but they do carry the social benefits of weak connections:  links to 1) prospective spouses, 2) job opportunities, and 3) new ideas (good and bad) that pass through chains of influence to you.

Likewise, ”unfriending God” has some of the immediate disadvantages – you suddenly erase your weak connections, isolating yourself from those benefits of the community.  Similarly, a relationship with God is like a relationship with anyone else, except that it’s even more one-sided and subject to personal interpretation (although all relationships are like this to an extent).

Unfortunately, marriages sometimes fail when people mistake a weak connection (through their mutual “friend” God) for a strong connection.  Strong connections take personal investment and time to develop.

Dirty Little Secret:  Strong connections require admiration and influence.  And in a marriage, it has to be a two-way street.

Rule #7:  Bear in mind the difference between a strong tie to God (if you even have that) and a weak tie through God to another person.  Building strong ties takes work.  Marriages require strong ties with influence in both directions (not too much “hand” on one side or the other).

Are any of these tips helpful to you?  Do you disagree with any?  How does the church work for you as a social network?  Do these models help?  Discuss.

January 27th 2010 was the Holocaust Memorial Day for the UK, and with my family we attended a small service in Ilford, England at Valentines Park. Readings, prayers, poetry and experiences were shared. Moreover, the youth in our ward had their own Holocaust memorial were we discussed aspects of that tragedy and the meaning that it might have for us today. Participating in this type of memorialising has often made me feel uncomfortable; I feel that I am an outsider to a form of suffering that (part of me) wants to claim as my own.

Positioning oneself in relation to this kind of ‘tribal’ suffering is not an uncommon experience. For example, Hirsch argues that ‘Post-memory’ is a concept that can help thinkers understand the ways in which seminal experiences, specifically those that are traumatic and painful, are transmitted through subsequent generations in a way that re-creates memories in those later generations[2]. As an example Hirsch looks at Holocaust memory and how these events have been a source of mystery and pain for some survivor’s children, a prominent example of the type of literature that such experiences of post-memory produce is ‘Maus’ by Art Spieglman.

These ideas might be important for Latter-day Saints because they provide a possible way of explaining a deeply connection with many of the events of the restoration (but particularly the suffering of the Saints). These feelings can be evocked in a number of ways, they are often linked with images and/or stories. Avard Fairbank’s statue of the couple over a small grave is one such example which resonates with me. It might also explain the emphasis the Church has placed upon its pioneer heritage; for if people are able to connect with this history their conversion becomes one of community (both contemporary and historical) as well as spiritual.

The negative side to this dynamic is that once those connections are made they provide a particular emotional/spiritual relationship that is often based upon ‘truth’.  If someone finds out that the Auschwitz was really just a holiday camp then perhaps we would understand their feeling betrayed.  Is it possible therefore that this process of post-memory is a part of a wider dynamic that binds people to the Church and its heritage but which also rests upon a certain historical veracity. 

Another question this raises pertains to whether such experiences can be accessible to people outside of the blood lines of such early pioneers, is it accessible for non-Americans?

Are such experiences even common to Americans (specifically Mountain Saints)?

I sense that they are accessible, but that this is done in contradictory or conflicting ways.  A Scottish lady once described her first visit to Nauvoo to me. She vividly depicted the buildings and experiences she had seen there. This lady walked away from Nauvoo across the river toward Winter Quarters and her heart broke; she wept as she trod her way up the hill, surprised at her own emotion. Later, while discussing this with a sibling, the sister said “Of course you felt that way, These are our People!”

I am not sure why such connections happen and yet I sense that they are important in establishing our communities. However I also sense that traversing the boundaries that divide us can also create fractures in the way we relate to and negotiate these experiences.  Moreover I believe that creating these connections also means that they are able to be betrayed.  I wonder whether people struggle to connect with Latter-Day Saint history in the same way I have struggled to form a legitimate association with the Holocaust?

Notes:

1. Leonard J. Arrington & Davis Bitton, The Mormon Experience: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 2^nd ed. (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1992) 334.

2. Marianne Hirsch “Surviving Images: Holocaust Photographs and the Work of Postmemory,” Yale Journal of Criticism (Spring 2001).

No one in the history of Mormon scholarship has done more to establish rational grounds for belief in the Book of Mormon than Hugh Nibley.  Acquiring impressive scholarly credentials (summa cum laude from UCLA and a Berkeley Ph.D. dissertation written in three weeks in 1938) before heading off to war….

From page 124,

Nibley’s legendary erudition, fluency across a spectrum of languages, and prodigious output (appearing in a wide range of scholarly publications from the Classical Journal and Encyclopedia Judaica to Church History and Revue de Qumran) have lent his work a weight that is unprecedented in Mormon studies.

Praised by the likes of non-LDS scholars Raphael Patai, Jacob Neusner, James Charlesworth, Cyrus Gordon, Jacob Milgrom, and former Harvard Divinity School dean George McRae (“it is obscene for a man to know that much,” he grumbled, hearing him lecture), Nibley has done more than any Mormon of his era to further the intellectual credibility of the Book of Mormon.²³ Inspired by his work, a more recent generation of LDS researchers brings a range of impressive scholarly credentials to serious Book of Mormon scholarship.²⁴

Many critics of the Book of Mormon take issue with this idea of “Reformed Egyptian.”  Givens quotes Moroni on page 132,

“we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech” (Morm. 9:32)

Mormon scholars take this to suggest the possibility that the writers used modified Egyptian symbols to represent Hebrew words (“Hebrew words, idioms, and syntax written in Egyptian cursive script”⁵³), certainly a bizarre idea for a nineteenth-century audience.  Now as John Tvedtnes points out, “the use of Egyptian symbols to transliterate Hebrew words and vice versa, is known from the sixth century B.C. text discovered at Arad and Kadesh-Barnea,”⁵⁴ Papyrus Amherst 63, for example, “contains a scriptural text in Northwest Semitic tongue written in an Egyptian script.”⁵⁵

Givens shows other parallels in the chapter, including:

• Lehi’s travel through the desert,
• his poetic structure,
• the golden plates parallel with the Copper Scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls (and other writings on ancient metal plates),
• similarities between Moroni’s Title of Liberty and the Quran,
• King Benjamin’s coronation was similar to Bablyonian rituals, and
• important plates buried in stone boxes by Darius, king of Persia.

Givens goes on to talk about John Welch.  As a missionary in Germany in 1967, Welch attended a lecture on chiasmus, a Hebrew literary device.  Welch soon discovered chiasmus in Mosiah 5:10-12, a form of inverted parallel poetry.  Welch went on to work with FARMS, the Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (formed in 1979.)  The group looks at Old World parallels in the Book of Mormon.  Givens addresses John Sorenson, the most recognized archaeologist advocating a Central American setting for the Book of Mormon.  (I plan a future post exclusively to Sorenson and his theory.)

Givens says that Mormon Scholarship is causing alarm among Evangelical critics.  From page 143,

Under the burden of Mormon scholarship that is increasingly well credentialed, and in the face of Mormon growth that is alarming to evangelicals,¹¹⁰ the polemics of nineteenth-century preachers are no longer an adequate response.  Until recently, for example, criticisms of barley or pre-Columbian horses in the Book of Mormon would come from writers of anti-Mormon books–not from botanists or archaeologists.  The latter have not, for the most part, taken the Book of Mormon seriously enough as a text to analyze its historical credibility.  A recent paper by two evangelical scholars suggests that a realignment of the Book of Mormon wars may be coming.

The 1997 address of Carl Mosser and Paul Owen at a regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society was remarkable for a number of reasons.  First, it accorded high praise to the state of Mormon scholarship.  They summarized a number of recent publications to illustrate their assertion that “in recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably…[and] is clearly seen in their approach to the Book of Mormon.”  As difficult as it may be to accept the fact, “LDS academicians are producing serious research which desperately needs to be critically examined,” they insisted.¹¹¹

In addition, Mosser and Owen are adamant that evangelical responses to Mormon scholarship have been, almost universally, “uninformed, misleading, or otherwise inadequate….At the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate.”¹¹² Actually, it hardly resembles a debate, because Mormon scholars, they acknowledge, “have…answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms.”  And, as of 1997, there were “no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.”¹¹³

…[page 144]  The major force in anti-Mormon polemics has long been Jerald and Sandra Tanner…It is no wonder that non-Mormon historian Lawrence Foster has faulted these critics, the most prolific of all anti-Mormon writers, for “twisting” scholarship, resorting to “debaters’ ploys,” and, in general, demonstrating “lack of balance and perspective.”¹¹⁷

So, what do you think of the state of Mormon Scholarship?

SHORT VERSION:  If all we do is get in the boat, Christ will row us to the other side.  But if we’re anxious to meet God face to face, there is an extra oar in the boat with our name on it.

LONG VERSION:

1. EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS emphasize that “Grace is sufficient” and we are helpless to save ourselves.  In response, people often ask, “Why would you continue to be good if you’re already saved and it doesn’t matter what you do?”  The response is often, “We do good works out of gratitude to God.”

2. MORMONS say that we are “saved by Grace after all that we can do”.  I think Shawn McCraney has a valid concern that Mormon people are burdened by the belief that they need to do all these things to become exalted. I’ve heard so many dear Mormon friends (some physically or mentally ill with severe limitations) gnash their teeth in fear that they had not “done all they could do” and would fail in God’s eyes or miss out on living with God.   I hope and pray for the message in Stephen E. Robinson’s Believing Christ to permeate Mormon culture.   In that book he describes that Grace is in fact sufficient, and that being in partnership with Christ is like having a bank account with infinity.  Any amount times infinity is infinity.  It’s not up to us to save ourselves, but it is up to us to be fully engaged in the process as our way of saying “yes” to that partnership.

3. EASTERN PHILOSOPHY emphasizes that our spiritual goals are attained by personal effort and choices, but also includes the idea of Grace in places.   In my yoga class this week we read from the Bagivad Gita a passage emphatically urging disciples that no progress will come, save from our own effort.  (In much of Eastern Philosophy, “works” are Knowledge, Selfless Service, Meditation, Renunciation, Devotion, and others.)

4. MY PERSPECTIVE is that the purpose of works is in fact the elevation of our consciousness and the transformation of our natures into Celestial Beings.  We miss the power of spiritual practices when we think of works as merely expressing gratitude to God, or even as a gesture to show God our sincerity.  Works actually do something that matters to our spiritual growth.  I sometimes wonder if  “Grace AFTER all we CAN do” doesn’t really play out as “Grace BEFORE all that we WILL do”,  since it is Grace that gives us the life, health, faith, motivation, understanding, and free will that allow us to do works in the first place.  To me, the co-creative process of spiritual growth looks like this:  If all we do is get in the boat, Christ will row us to the other side.  But if we’re anxious to meet God face to face, there is an extra oar in the boat with our name on it.

Questions for you:

1. What do you think of my universalist religion-synthesizing?  Am I missing the point?

2. What do you think of Shawn McCraney’s concern that Mormons are in bondage under a false teaching that more than faith is needed for us to live with God? Do you feel in bondage?

3. What do you think of my idea that works are optional?  Blasphemy or sensible?

4. In my boat analogy, if you agree with it, what does it mean to “get in the boat”?

Although I agree with Elder Oak in principle, I suspect that some of the decisions that I make will be of this more negative order.  Moreover, these will most probably be the more painful of the two types.  Lets consider the possible impact in Abraham and Sarai’s lives (and these might be possible questions to raise in SS if you can get them to cover this episode):

• How did Sarai feel about Abraham’s choice?
• How did Abraham feel about his choice, especially as he became wealthy as a result of such an act?
• Did they tell Isaac?
• Could Sarai have refused and how did Abraham feel about her not refusing?

Now if Nibley were here he might argue that this is merely a devilish trick to make us choose between two equally evil propositions (which is worse crack or heroine), but there is always a third choice.   If this is true then what was Abraham’s other choice?

Finally, is there any possible spiritual benefit in such choices?  Can any good come from them?

To my mind I feel that my life is a constant series of these types of choices and thus I am constantly given the choice between conflicting options that inevitably will lead to some negativity.  Perhaps I am just a half-empty kinda guy but I feel for Abraham.

My questions then are these:

Are there situations where there are only choices which are bad, worse and worst? Or can we always escape such decisions?

If so, is this possible a spiritually useful situation or do we just have to move through such experiences seeking forgiveness where we can?

This story is so very, very familiar to us that I think it’s important to look at it with a fresh perspective.  So in this post I am including some pieces from media and the arts that force us to think about Genesis 22.  I promise you in advance that some of these might be disturbing to you.  Probably you will disagree with the portrayal of Abraham’s sacrifice in at least one, if not all, of these pieces.  I hope you will share your reactions in the comments.

One of my favorite poems juxtaposes the story of Abraham with World War I.  The poet, Wilfred Owen, is a tragic figure himself, who was gunned down at age 25 just seven days before the Armistice on November 4, 1918.  This poem invites the reader to consider the effects of extreme religious devotion.

The Parable of the Young Man and the Old
Wilfred Owen

So Abram rose, and clave the wood, and went,
And took the fire with him, and a knife.
And as they sojourned, both of them together,
Isaac the first-born spake, and said, My Father,
Behold the preparations, fire and iron,
But where the lamb for this burnt-offering?
Then Abram bound the youth with belts and straps,
And builded parapets the trenches there,
And stretched forth the knife to slay his son.
When lo! an angel called him out of heaven,
Saying, Lay not thy hand upon the lad,
Neither do anything to him. Behold,
A ram, caught in a thicket by its horns;
Offer the Ram of Pride instead of him.
But the old man would not so, but slew his son,
And half the seed of Europe, one by one.

The next bit of media comes from the BBC’s That Mitchell and Webb Look. The parody pokes fun at believers whose religion keeps them from thinking for themselves:

The image below is an etching entitled The Sacrifice of Abraham by Marc Chagall.   The same study was done as a watercolor, as an oil painting, and as a drawing in pastel and China ink.  Each has symbolic features which are not present in the others.  A review of the etching describes it as follows:

“…the sacrifice of Abraham presents human drama as confrontation of two wills and two freedoms: that of the creator and his creature. Chagall’s rendering of this scene is of great subtlety. Using a mirror effect between the figures of Isaac and the angel, between Abraham’s posture and that of the heavenly messenger, he suggests complementarity and ultimate unity between heaven and earth. In the end, there will be no opposition between the faithful Abraham and his God, because there exists a perfect match between human obedience and divine mercy. The bound and naked Isaac is a symbol of extreme vulnerability and suggests acute sensitivity to the word of God. God answers in kind, rushing his angel in sudden descent to arrest the movement of Abraham’s knife. Thus, although bathed in an atmosphere of frightening proportions, the pictorial narrative speaks of two worlds reconciled by tender love. The latter, tender love, finds its artistic expression in the tiny white ram emerging from the thicket on the left. Too tiny for the giant knife, the ram is a reminder that God does not want sacrifices but love.”

Does this type of yielding and vulnerable submission make you  more comfortable than the more fanatic type? Why or why not?

Now let’s explore what would happen if Abraham did decide to think for himself — to take a critical look at what God was asking him to do. What if that were God’s purpose behind the lesson, after all? This short story comes from the Fob Bible, which I own and I highly recommend. It is called “Abraham’s Purgatory,” and was written by Ben Christensen.

Abraham’s Purgatory (click to read)

I included the lithograph below by Salvador Dali because I think it is interesting how the Abraham and Isaac figures are so small and how the focus of the work is the angel. It dominates the picture and brings to mind the sacred nature of the sacrificial story. Dali’s angel is not an insipid, white robed choir boy. We see the figure from the back and it is both awe-inspiring, unknowable, and a bit frightening.

Abraham, Abraham! by Salvador Dali

As you watch the following comedic sketch, ask yourself the question: “Is it easier to do something God asks if you want to do it anyway?” How much personal interpretation comes into play when we are deciphering God’s will?

Jewish Midrash suggests that it was difficult to dissuade Abraham from the act of sacrificial violence once he had decided to kill his son. The Midrash reads: “…and he said: Lay not thy hand upon the lad. Where was the knife? Tears had fallen from the angels upon it and dissolved it.” It was the tears of the angels, not those of Abraham that dissolved the knife. Yet, even after seeing the knife dissolve, Abraham is unconvinced and persists with the violence. “’Then I will strangle him,’ said he [Abraham] to Him. ‘Lay not thy hand upon the lad,’ was the reply. ‘Let us bring forth a drop of blood from him,’ he pleaded.” Abraham refuses to be deterred. His unaffected and immediate suggestion of an alternative method of sacrifice is shocking. Some may consider this to be steadfast piety, but the violent undertone stands in stark contrast with the Midrashim that emphasize piety over violence. After that method is refused, he then pleads if he may bring forth a drop of blood from his son. The use of the word “pleads” would lead one to assume that Abraham’s plea to G-d was an emotional one. The emotion, it seems, stems more so from an inability to sacrifice his son than from G-d’s request that the sacrifice be made.

The sculpture below by Berruguete is included for its portrayal of the human emotion on the faces of Abraham and Isaac. You will probably hear in your Sunday School lesson the idea that Isaac was a youth in his prime at the time of the sacrifice, while Abraham was an old man. This interpretation promotes the idea that Isaac was a willing participant in the act of submission to God. The sculpture visually portrays this idea, picturing Isaac as a strong and virile young man, capable of wresting himself free from his bonds. Though horrified and frightened, he is kneeling and complaisant.

The final piece of media I would like to include for your consideration is a biblical canticle written by Benjamin Britten. During this two-person opera, one singer assumes the role of Abraham while the other takes that of Isaac. Through the homophony of the two singers, God’s voice emerges as if it were a third solo singer. The use of the older tenor and the younger alto voices in the vignette below to sing the words of God is very moving.

GOD: Abraham, my servant, Abraham,
Take Isaac, thy son by name,
That thou lovest the best of all,
And in sacrifice offer him to me
Upon that hill there beside thee.

Abraham, I will that so it be,
For aught that may befall.

As they sing “Abraham,” the notes are first discordant, then resolve, aptly representing the theme of the story.

Abraham and Isaac by Benjamin Britten

The story of Abraham and Isaac is a powerful one. It is the most dramatic moment in the life of one of the most important of the Biblical prophets. I think that its inclusion in the Bible is meant to be disturbing and to evoke turmoil and discomfort. I hope that the Sunday School portrayal of this section of the scriptural record will not be too soft and fluffy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On the one hand, we teach that God is omniscient, all knowing, the smartest of the smart, prognosticator of prognosticators, etc.  OTOH, we teach the doctrine of eternal progression:  that as man is, God once was, and as God is, man may become.  We also teach that eternal progression is part of God’s plan for us, and that we are to learn and grow “line upon line, precept upon precept.”

Since “the glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36) and “intelligence or the light of truth was not created nor made nor indeed can be” (D&C 93:29) and when “there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all” (Abraham 3:19) – does that mean that there are hierarchies of Gods based on intelligence or the “light of truth”?  Is intelligence something that we can’t increase?  Does that mean that eternal progression is not increasing our intelligence?

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

• Does it mean that we continue to make mistakes and learn from them?  Are we allowed to make mistakes after we die?  Does God still make mistakes?  Does he have some discarded practice earths floating around out there?  (Maybe that’s what happened to Pluto)
• Does access to knowledge constitute eternal progression (e.g. celestial Wikipedia, when the earth becomes a Urim & Thummim)?
• Does God explore strange new worlds (presumably created by other Gods), seek out new civilizations and boldly go?
• How does God become like His Father?  Is that just getting old, but no additional skills are required, kind of like going from CEO to being on the board of directors?
• Is there a God threshold?  At which point do we say “Now THAT’s Godhood.  Yesterday, that was pre-Godhood, but today you’ve arrived”?  Is that when one has atoned?  If so, are there enough atonements to go around or are there lower level God positions for those who aren’t going to go that far?
• Can stupid people become Gods?  Wouldn’t stupid Gods have stupid spiritual kids?  Do different planets have different intelligences?  What if we ARE the stupid ones?
• Wouldn’t it be boring as all get out if you were a God and there was nothing new to learn or experience?  Is God in a constant state of ennui?  Isn’t that why the Greek gods were always chasing tail and creating havoc – boredom + power?
• Isn’t lack of progress the Mormon definition of hell?  If God doesn’t progress, doesn’t that = hell?  That can’t be right.

So, take a moment to consider what your opinion is and answer the following poll:

Discuss.