A team of current BYU students has now resurrected the Student Review, printing and distributing its first issue on September 19^th. In this episode, we meet the SR’s new editor, Craig Mangum, and learn about his team’s plans for the newspaper. We also hear about the newspaper’s founding and history from other panelists, Bill Kelly, SR’s first publisher, and former editors Joanna Brooks and Matt Workman. But mostly we get a chance to hear tales of a wonderful slice of BYU life as experienced by some of the school’s best and brightest of the past and present. WARNING: This podcast contains stories of a credit card of mythological status, sexual tension, and adventures with security guards and steam tunnels.

To learn more about, read articles from, or find out how you can support the new incarnation of the Student Review, please visit www.thestudentreview.org.

A good history of SR written at the time of its tenth anniversary by Bryan Waterman, a former editor, can be found here.

In this episode, one of the article’s co-authors, Darron Smith, joins Mormon Matters host Dan Wotherspoon and regular contributor Joanna Brooks in a far-ranging and spirited discussion of the article and its findings, as well as wider issues of racism with Mormonism and how they might be highlighted and addressed at both the general Church and local congregational levels.

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

• Begging, pleading, and bribing are usually not effective means to parenting.  I see bribing as different to providing proper, thought-out incentives.
• The most effective tool we can use while parenting is keeping our cool.
• The second most effective tool we can use while parenting is realizing that our children have agency, much like we do – and that ultimately, we do not have control over our children. How we respond in absence to this control is much what parenting is about. We can look towards our Heavenly Father and his parenting style to give us pointers in this process. It’s His plan after all.

Much of our anxiety around parenting resides on the following issues:

• Legitimate fears we have for our children.
• Non-legitimate fears we have for our children.
• Expectations we have for our children and what we perceive will happen if they are not met.
• Worrying about what others will think of us dependent on how our children act or fail to act.

I’d like for you to take some time and honestly assess how much of your anxiety over this issue resides in which parts of this list. This will be helpful for you to center yourself.

Here are some parenting tips that hopefully will help in your situation:

• Respectfully, clearly and simply lay down the 2-3 reasons for your stance. “We feel that seminary is important because it gives you a doctrinal foundation of your religion and opens up doors when you decide what university you want to attend. You are in the position of being an example to your siblings and we feel you will be blessed in ways we may not always be aware if you go.”
• If you have more than one parent in the home, make sure you are united in your stance (even if you disagree with each other). “Both your father and I feel this is important and plan to enforce our decisions on this matter.” Or “your mother and I don’t completely agree on the importance of your seminary attendance, but we do agree on the expectations in our home.”
• Listen and validate your child’s opinion (a sure fire way of doing this is pretty much repeating what they say and wait for more input). “You don’t care if you go to a church university…. (silence and wait for them to elaborate). You don’t like getting up in the morning…. (silence…), etc.” Then make a validating statement and follow up with your boundary. “I can understand why you would feel this way and I respect that. At the same time, this is what your father and I are going to expect at this time.”
• It is perfectly appropriate to change our stances as parents if we feel the need to do so without worrying about “losing face.” “We have thought about the points you have made and after considering it together, we agree with you…” Or “we agree with you on this but not that.”
• Come up with some clear and fair consequences (either rewards or punishments) for the behavior in question. “Children in our home who attend seminary will have certain privileges given them.” (I personally am not a big fan of punishments for seminary attendance.  I see it more as an earning behavior.)  Then let the child decide whether or not that incentive is worth it to them. In this way, you are placing responsibility on the teen’s shoulders for their behavior and they will need to account for their choices. You no longer have to have ongoing conversations that do nothing to help you build your relationship with your child. You have stated your case, you have laid your law, you have given them a chance to express their concerns, it is now time for their choice and the end of the discussion.  “We see that you have decided not to attend seminary.  Therefore, you realize you are giving up this privilege we would otherwise make available to you.  You also realize that we are disappointed in your choice.  Regardless of your choices, we love you and want only the best for your life.”  Once this is said, you can revisit the issue every few months.  But it no longer needs to be a daily struggle that saps your energy.
• The biggest challenges now are 1. to back up what you have stated, and to do it consistently, 2. to allow the child to make the “wrong choice” and suffer the natural consequences and 3. to decide how you will respond to those who don’t agree with your parenting style (i.e. church leaders or other ward members that believe you should force your child to go to seminary).
• I always caution about giving punishments that are too long or that are punitive and/or unrealistic. For example, not allowing a teen to drive at all, or grounding for months at at time. If a punishment is too long, then it can feel hopeless to the child and they lose motivation to work towards getting their privileges back. This is when you engender more rebellion and get stuck within power struggles that are a lose-lose to all involved. A weekend sentence or inability to attend one special event should be sufficient for most teens.

As our children develop into teenagers, we need to look for ongoing opportunities to have them make their own choices. Even if we risk them falling, it is only through these stumbling steps that they will learn some of life’s choicest lessons. We cannot continue to make decisions for them. Understanding that rebellion is a normal, and actually healthy, part of this developmental stage can be helpful and normalizing to us as parents. Hopefully by the time our kids become adolescents, we have taught them well and have given them the tools they need to make appropriate decisions. They will still make mistakes. Adolescence is a developmental phase that brings with it many wonderful, yet scary prospects: increased independence, increased responsibility, increased peer influence, increased consequences to poor decisions, increased self assertion, etc., etc. This can be a difficult juncture for parents. If we treat these spirits who find themselves in between a child and an adult with respect, honesty, sincere advise, and clear, realistic household expectations- then we are doing the best we can.

Whether or not your daughter goes to seminary, and whether or not she decides to go to a church-sponsored school – I am sure she is wonderful. She can be successful and an asset to others throughout her life regardless. I hope she will receive this message from the most influential people in her life: her parents. As far as praying and fasting: I think all of us parents are doing that at some level.

A book I recommend for parents is:
 Scream Free Parenting by Hal Runkel
He also has a website at screamfree.com

MM Readers: What is your opinion and what advice would you give?

Should adolescents be “forced” to go to seminary?  What has or hasn’t worked within your own families?

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

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.

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

High Cost of Leaving Ultra-Orthodox Judaism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For some background, Joanna was a very important figure in the uber-controversial BYU Academic Freedom days of 1990-1993…and is now a writer on Mormon topics for Religion Dispatches (along w/ being the Dept. Chair of English at SDSU).  She was also recently featured on RadioWest to discuss the phenomenon of Glenn Beck.  As you may remember from her post earlier this week, Joanna has recently started an advice-column blog entitled “AskMormonGirl.com“, and cross-blogs here on Mormon Matters.

You can listen to these episodes directly from this page (below), or you can subscribe to the podcast via iTunes and listen on your iPod (click “Continue Reading” below for instructions).

Part 1: Part 1

Part 2: Part 2

Please give a hearty Mormon Matters welcome to Dr./Sister/Mommy Joanna Brooks!  And please let us know what you think via comments below!

To subscribe to the podcast: Once iTunes is installed, click here and then follow the instructions until you see a “subscribe” button, and click it.  This will allow you to download all the past and present episodes (to your preference), and will automatically provide you with new episodes as they are released.

(Notice Helaman Halls in the background.  See here to appreciate the parody)

The 2001 version of the For The Strength of Youth pamplet distributed to all LDS teens says the following regarding modesty:

…Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient.

Immodest clothing includes short shorts and skirts, tight clothing, shirts that do not cover the stomach, and other revealing attire. Young women should wear clothing that covers the shoulder and avoid clothing that is low-cut in the front or the back or revealing in any other manner. Young men should also maintain modesty in their appearance….

I’ve always bristled at this proscriptive, specific list of directions on how to dress modestly. Partially because I happen to LIKE women in short shorts & skirts, but also because it seems to ignore the fact that modesty is a moving target that varies based on context. What’s modest now wasn’t modest 100 years ago, and what’s modest on the beach isn’t modest in the chapel or at work. These guidelines always seemed rather arbitrary to me while I was a teenager – and I’m sure todays teenagers are similarly perplexed. Why are the young women specifically instructed to cover their shoulders but the young men aren’t? Why is it culturally acceptable for the young men to wear swim suits that reveal their stomachs, but that would be considered immodest for the young women? With the definition of modesty changing over time and depending on where you are or what you’re doing, the obvious questions become: why is modesty important, or is it important? Why are such specific guidelines given?

God doesn’t seem to have given any specific commandments like “Thou shalt always cover your thighs at all times and all places.” The closest we’ve got is 1 Timothy 2:9-10 which says “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;” But this passage seems to be more about avoiding expensive or pretentious clothing than making sure we cover specific body parts. The lack of specific guidance from God leads me to believe that He expects us to determine our own definition of what is modest and what isn’t – perhaps even that God isn’t particularly concerned about what parts of our body we cover and what parts we don’t.

So if God doesn’t command it, why are we modest? Part of me believes that modesty is something we do out of respect for ourselves. I believe we should treat our bodies with respect and take good care of them, but it’s not clear to me that covering our bodies is necessarily a sign of respect – or that not covering our bodies is a sign of disrespect. Rather than discussing modesty in terms of coverage, it seems more appropriate to discuss our intentions when deciding to cover or not cover certain parts of our body, and the extent to which our desires effectively objectify or dehumanize ourselves. In this respect, the act of wearing revealing clothing may be insignificant, but our intentions may be questionable.

Ultimately, I believe that the principle of modesty is primarily about having respect for each other – that society has constructed a set of cultural norms and expectations for what people should wear at various times and places, and that we should dress modestly according to what those around us are wearing, or what they expect us to wear. So I believe we should dress modestly, but not necessarily for God, because I’m not sure He cares. Rather, we should dress modestly out of mutual respect for each other. Jesus taught that we should love our neighbors, and part of loving our neighbors is agreeing to live reasonably within societal expectations. We aren’t loving our neighbors if we choose to wear clothing that we know will offend someone else.

Based on my understanding, modesty has much more to do with context than anything else. It’s inappropriate to wear revealing clothing within a context where it will be unexpected or unappreciated. Of course, by adopting this understanding, I’m also acknowleging that it may be appropriate to wear revealing clothing within certain contexts – provided that our intentions aren’t to objectify ourselves. But I believe that individuals are best suited to decide for themselves what is appropriate and what isn’t for every occasion – while allowing societal expectations to inform their decisions.

So how should we interpret the proscriptive instructions given in the FTSOY pamphlet? One option is to believe that I am wrong, and that these are universal guidelines that should apply to all persons at all times in all places. If that’s the case, then The Church has some explaining to do regarding those little shorts the BYU Women’s volleyball players wear (I’m just sayin’…). The better option, in my opinion, is to believe that The Church is simply establishing the arbitrary dress code that will be required of the youth attending church-sponsored activities – a dress code that doesn’t apply to non-church-sponsored activities – and a dress code that all members of the Church should feel comfortable deviating from any time they are not participating in a church-sponsored activity.
I am aware that the pamphlet says, “Show respect for the Lord and for yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities, whether on Sunday or during the week,” which seems to imply the opposite – that these are guidelines to be followed regardless of where you are or what you’re doing. I choose to interpret this statement very literally, however, and I believe that we should dress appropriately regardless of what we’re doing. I just believe that it’s our responsibility to determine what’s appropriate and what isn’t.

DISCLAIMER: The exception to the rule is that parents have the right to determine for their dependent children what is appropriate and what isn’t – and within this context, parents have the right to be as arbitrary as they please in setting rules for their children.

“Our Nation has had a long and unfortunate history of sex discrimination. Traditionally, such discrimination was rationalized by an attitude of ‘romantic paternalism’ which, in practical effect, put women not on a pedestal, but in a cage.” Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).

BYU is closing its Women’s Research Institute, and I, along with many others http://supportwri.blogspot.com/, am distressed by this decision. My distress comes, not only because of the consequences of this shortsighted move, but because it is emblematic of the overall problem in the church of romantic paternalism.

Forgive me a personal anecdote. There are many things that are sacred about LDS temples and not discussed outside their walls, however, the fact that they are staffed almost exclusively by surprisingly spritely octogenarians is not one of those details. As a newly married couple my husband and I went to the Salt Lake temple to do sealings.  When I got married I kept my surname and, for some reason it is only in Mormon contexts that this seems to particularly baffle people. This confusion almost always surfaces in American temples (since in many parts of the world, like all of Central and South America, it is social custom for the wife to keep her name). On this particular occasion one of the aforementioned elderly crew was having a hard time understanding why, though we were legally and lawfully wed, we had different surnames. He demanded that I give my reasons for such a decision, and not satisfied with the fact that it was my prerogative, he insisted that I was not respecting my husband. His final snide remark to me was, “well it will be nice when the light finally comes on for you.”

This angry brother was not alone in his contempt for independent women. I have seen many comments from people in the past few days that it is a shame that BYU is closing its Women’s Research Institute. I think that it is not only a shame, but also a sham. The official claims from the school are that the dissolution of the Institute will actually increase support of, funding for, and emphasis on women’s studies. This is emblematic of the doublespeak the BYU administration has perfected in response to concern over many issues. Less is more. Closing is just a way of beginning anew. We are shutting this program down because we find it so, so very important.

It is this same doublespeak that is used to simultaneously compliment and limit women in the church. As a Mormon woman I find it very uncomfortable to hear men talk about their wives in public settings from sacrament meeting to general conference. Traditional “feminine virtues” abound. Wives are described as “sweet,” “angelic,” “virtuous,” “charitable,” “compassionate,” “kind,” and, most importantly, “beautiful.” One Sunday we were asked to talk and I dared my husband to describe me as his “courageous,” “strong,” “intelligent” wife. I don’t want to be “cherished,” I want to be taken seriously.

There is a cohesive and powerful message to women running throughout the church. You have a (wonderful, glorious) place, stay put! This message runs throughout the history (ahem, polygamy & the ERA) and modern role models provided for women. You want to know why “Utah Women Lag Behind the Nation in Higher Education”  just watch General Conference any given session. All of the women who speak fit a very neat stereotype in their appearance, the subject matter of their talks and their delivery (which was described by my own father this way: “Hm, I don’t really know what it is about them, but NO MATTER what they are speaking about, their tone of voice seems to convey that they are talking about knitting.”).

This stereotype is also, of course, very pervasive in LDS culture. Last fall, as a first year law student studying in San Diego, I was invited to an event for all of the LDS law students in the area. There were approximately 30 students and their respective families in attendance. I was the only female law student. We took turns introducing ourselves in a circle after the meal while “the wives” played with children in an adjoining room. All of the men introduced themselves and said, “(insert female name) is over there with ‘the wives’.” When it came to us, everyone turned to my husband to introduce me. The experience was both surreal, and disconcerting. We both felt that the temporal context of that event might better have fit the 1970s, when my mother was attending law school, or 1870s for that matter.

This institutionalized approach of romantic paternalism in LDS culture needs to end. BYU, and the church in general need to take a leap into the 20^th Century (not to mention the 21^st). Women and men are equal in the sight of God. We are not more virtuous. We are not lovelier. We do not want to be held to a different standard, or be seen through a colored lens. We want our concerns, choices and academic pursuits to be taken seriously.

Back at the Salt Lake Temple in the sealing room that evening, in a moment of perhaps poor judgment, I replied to the obviously irritated temple worker, “that’s funny brother, I was about to say the very same thing.”

I took a fairly typical course: I lived in the dorms (Deseret Towers) as a freshman, took two years off for a mission, came back, got serious about a Major program, and finished it up in 3 additional years (plus some spring and summer classes.)

Overall, I am very pleased with my BYU experience, and look upon it in overwhelmingly positive light.  If I may, I’d like to highlight a few of the outstanding parts.

• Freshman dorm life was a blast. Unfortunately, academics occasionally took a backseat that year, but the episodes I experienced with my dorm-mates are truly priceless, and they lead to the formation of some very lasting friendships.
• The mission-prep resources are unparalleled. For a kid getting ready to go on a mission, there are few better environments that the BYU freshman community.  Not only are there classes, firesides, etc, but the fact that you are in it with others who are also preparing leads to a great setting to get excited about and prepared for entering the MTC.
• Student employment opportunities. Upon my return from my mission, I was a resident assistant in the dorms.  That proved to be a fantastic experience, and I was very happy to be able to share my mission insights with those yet preparing.  After that job, I was employed by the International Studies center to be their webmaster.  That proved to be very valuable in helping me apply the material from my academic programs into a real world settings (computer programming, database administration, etc)  These employment opportunities were also gateways into meeting faculty, getting my name out, etc.
• Off-Campus Environment. While perhaps a bit more rough around the edges, there was a plenitude of events, locations, and other resources off-campus to enjoy a good time.  Some of the off-campus apartments were nicer than others, but on a weekend night, there were never shortages of pools/hot tubs, rec rooms, or sport courts to help have something to do.
• Mormon “Celebrities” on Campus. In addition to an Apostle visit to campus each semester, there were opportunities to run into semi-recognizable names on Campus.  I more than once ran into Lloyd Newel (think Music and the Spoken Word,) and even met Dan C. Peterson in the back of a lecture hall, and was able to have a nice 20 minute chat with him.  My New Testament class teacher was Stephen E. Robinson (“Believing Christ”) who I greatly admire.
• Robust Academic Programs. Most of my course work was at the Marriott School of Management, which consistently receives high marks nationally.  I was often overwhelmed by the homework and exams, but I never felt cheated or short changed when it came to the quality of the business school’s academics.
• Affordability. When compared to other university programs nationally, BYU rates are a huge bargain.  Thank tithing subsidies for that.
• A Wholesome Environment. Don’t be fooled, you can find pretty much anything at BYU.  Yes that may shock you, but its true.  However, for those seeking a wholesome and straight-laced lifestyle, BYU is certainly a haven for that.  While everyone does develop their own sense and path of spirituality, BYU does provide a sustaining environment for those more or less within mainstream orthodoxy.

I must say however, there were a few times when I was quite significantly irked at certain elements of the BYU system.  Without ranting too extensively, let me elaborate:

• The facial hair thing. This topic has been discussed ad-nauseum, so please, refrain from commenting profusely about this, but I have to say I was rather annoyed when I was turned away at the cafeteria for having 24 hours worth of scruff.
• Parking. This is a problem almost anywhere many people congregate, but the students really got the short end of the stick on this one.  The faculty get the premium spots, and the students get the lots that require 15 minute walks to campus.  Hmm… who’s the customer here again?  I ended up just walking, carpooling, busing, or biking most of the time.  This was one battle I did not feel like fighting.
• Image Paranoia. Keenly aware of its ambassador status for the Church, BYU is dead set on projecting the “Garden of Eden” image to the world.  My positions as BYU employee let me in on a few ins and outs of PR control, and I was disheartened to learn of a few administrative moves involving hush-money and cover-stories for the sake of saving face.  Also, while permitted/tolerated, student protests were met with high levels of disapproval from on high, and the tight lipped responses from BYU administrators regarding the relevant issues seemed a bit jarring.  (Remember the Dick Cheney graduation incident?)
• The dating scene myth. Its true that many couples meet and marry at BYU.  But I had been misled into believing that the girls are all righteous fair maidens with visions of eternal marriage dancing through their heads.  That bubble burst fairly early on, but I still never got quite the picture of how things were really supposed to work.  I did my fair share of dating, make no mistake, but let me tell you, it’s not what they say it is.  I’m still single.

I really could go on for much longer, about the good, and the not-so-good.  But let me say again, I am please to call myself a BYU grad, I enjoyed my experience, and I am very grateful for the career and employment paths that it has opened for me.  After all, that’s really why I went to college.

I know that BYU isn’t for everyone.  I had several close friends who never could hit a stride in the BYU universe, and became casualities of the system.  I like to remind people that BYU attendance is NOT a requirement for salvation, and many members of the church get by just fine without ever having set foot in Provo.

For me, I was a close enough match to the “target audience” that I got through the experience without a sour taste in my mouth.  Again, I look back on the past 6 years (minus 2 mission years) with satisfaction and accomplishment.

So for you fellow BYU alumns, how does your experience contrast to mine?  For non-alumns, how do my comments square up to your concept of what BYU is like for a student?  Or just feel free to throw out any comments about BYU in general.

There are BYU professors, and there are BYU professors. Brother Keller is in a class by himself. His life story alone fascinates me. Converted to the church as a young adult, then left the church,  became an ordained Presbyterian pastor in Colorado, converted back to the LDS Church as an adult, and continued to maintain an interest in other religions, to the point of living in a Zen Buddhist monastery for a time, where he learned meditation and other lessons he later imparted to his students.

Three incidents come to mind which endear him to me:

I took his “Gospel and World Religions” class and he introduced us to the art of Zen Buddhist meditation. For about six minutes (which seemed like an eternity), the classroom was entirely silent while we meditated. I left the classroom literally laughing for joy from the stress relief, it being around final exam time and all. It was the most concentrated experience of peace I had found to that point in my young life.

In the same course, we were discussing the idea of blood and presumably DNA literally changing upon baptism in order to make a convert one of the house of Israel. This idea was propagated in a book by a respected LDS author at the time. Professor Keller’s response was perfect when challenged by a student who was advocating the idea: “I don’t believe it. And you don’t have to either. No matter who says it.” This was a shock to some in the class who were accustomed to a much more authoritarian theory of truth.

I took a follow-up course from Brother Keller called “American Christianity and the LDS Church” along with a friend of mine. Both of us were on intellectual trajectories which could very well have taken us out of Church activity. Brother Keller said something very perceptive at the end of the semester: “I know some of you have taken this class to get away from the LDS Church, but I hope that what you have learned here will help eventually bring you back towards it.” It did, Brother Keller.

I can’t say enough good about this man, although I’m disappointed that he shaved off his trademark mustache.

Do you have examples to share of teachers who’ve helped you stay Mormon, or just inspirational teachers in general?

A bit of background: I’m a relative late comer to England’s work. He was still teaching at BYU when I was there (’90-’91, ’94-’96), but I never took a class from him. All I heard was that he was “one of those Sunstone-type liberal Mormons.” Given my limited world-view at the time, I paid him little mind, assuming that he would talk himself out of the Church sooner or later. It was only a few years ago that I found a collection of his essays on-line via Signature Books. After that, I couldn’t get enough, and have spent many hours since curled up with an essay or symposium recording.

For me, England sits apart from other big names in the Mormon Studies world. I see folks like Michael Quinn and Todd Compton as the “head” of that particular body — they are fact gatherers, interested in overturning every possible stone in hopes of unearthing new facts shedding light on Obscure Historical Issue #467 (What phase was the moon in on the day of the First Vision?; What did he eat for lunch in Liberty jail?). Don’t get me wrong, these are worthwhile endeavors, but can leave one lacking spiritually. England, by contrast, is the “heart” of the movement. He rarely focused on historical minutia. Rather, he dealt with big-picture questions: what does it mean to be a Christian? What does it mean to become “like God” in the hereafter and how do we prepare ourselves now for that state? How will men and women be united in the afterlife?

Heady stuff. As I’ve been re-reading some of my favorite essays, it has come to mind that, while we often pay homage to England, we’re more reticent to actually incorporate the lessons he taught into our worship. That’s a shame, in my book. In hopes of remedying the situation, I offer below two main themes of England’s work which, I believe, have the potential to aid us in our journey toward perfection, both as individuals and as a Church.

[A quick disclaimer: this post does not aspire to be a comprehensive survey of England's body of work. Feel free to let me know in the comments if you think I've mischaracterized him or his writing in any way.]

1. A “Theology Of Peace”: I’ve written at length in other places about the travails of being a Mormon Democrat, a role which often puts me at odds politically with almost all of my friends and fellow worshipers on any given Sunday. For the most part, that difference doesn’t bother me; I believe the world is big enough for Mormons from all over the political spectrum. However, what I do find heartbreaking is the lengths to which some of my more conservative-leaning Mormon friends will go to justify the war in Iraq. Armed (pardon the pun) with plenty of scriptures from Alma and Helaman, they prattle on about the need to use force to defeat evil, and speak in platitudes about “modern Gadianton robbers.”

This is not the Christianity I know. England offers a counterpoint to this approach. As he taught it, LDS theology — which he deemed a “theology of peace” — mandates the principle and practice of “effective pacifism,” whereby “we are called to do whatever we can that will genuinely create peace, even sacrifice our own lives.” The central tenet of this philosophy, drawn from the same scriptural basis relied on by Latter-Day hawks, is: “Enemies cannot be defeated, they can only be changed into other than enemies by true principles of love, and God will provide the power to do that if we will trust him and pay the price of trying things his way.” Christ taught that we must “love our enemies”; England believed that if were to take this principle seriously, it would bring peace not only to us individually, but also collectively to the nations of the world. Such a stratagem requires the most difficult of disciplines: knowing and treating your enemies as “humans like ourselves.” England, ever the realist, recognized that this theory would not always work, and he made room for a compromise position analogous to the Catholic notion of “just war.” But, in his eyes, “effective pacifism” is an ideal worth striving for.

Imagine the possibilities were the U.S. to adopt this approach in dealing with the Middle East. Could resisting the temptation to tear down existing political, social and economic structures abroad as a means for “bringing about a government more to our liking” have saved any of the thousands of lives lost? If we come to see the Iranians as children of the same Father in Heaven, rather than as godless heathens, how would that inform our approach towards them in this heated political climate? Thinking closer to home, if I were to recognize my neighbors first as sons and daughters of God, my thoughts and actions towards them necessarily would be lifted by an increase of love. Rather than finding cause for conflict, I would take the opportunity to serve them unconditionally.

2. Being “Mormon”: For my money, this was England’s forté. England was a Mormon, through and through. His essays are brimming with anecdotes from his childhood involving family prayers, conference trips and attending “boring” meetings. England saw everything through the prism of LDS theology. For example, he crafted well-reasoned, but always uniquely Mormon, positions on virtually every major political event from the 1960′s through the 1990′s, from Watergate to the Cold War to the Operation Desert Storm. Regardless of whether you agree(d) with him, England was not afraid to take a stand while flying his Primary-colored flag high (for those of you who have forgotten, our primary colors — sing it with me — are red, yellow and blue.)

But England’s deep and abiding love for Mormonism went well beyond his cultural and political endeavors. He grappled with the issue of what it truly means to be a member of the Church, and how that relates to being a disciple of Christ. England taught that former is a means to achieving the latter. Put another way:

The Church is true in large part because it provides an opportunity, for all who are willing, to endure all these things — and also to be guilty of them — and thus to learn how to be merciful, to be patient and forgiving, to accept forgiveness and help, to love unconditionally so we can accept the unconditional love of the Atonement and be saved.

The key to the Atonement, therefore, is to learn to love those with whom we disagree, or who hold opinions/beliefs that we find repugnant. Mandatory church attendance is a laboratory for developing this Christ-live and charity. It is our responsibility to progress beyond being mere “consumers” of the services offered at Church; we must actively participate in providing those services to others. To do so, we must resist the natural urge to find fault with, or to be offended by even the most genuinely offensive behavior of, our fellow travelers:

The Gospel is so overwhelmingly valuable that it crowds out the temptation to be overwhelmed by the mistakes people make trying to translate its ideals into specific Church expression and action — the real intellectual problems and puzzles that such human expression of the Gospel can get us involved in.

This statement took my breath away the first time I read it and, since then, it has changed (for the better) the way I view my place in the Church. Imagine how such an approach could enrich our everyday Church activity? How effective would your Ward be were it filled with “doers” as opposed to “consumers?”

This point is especially salient for those of us who frequent this insular world we call the Bloggernacle. It often seems we spend most of our time venting frustration that “regular” Mormons are unfairly dismissive of, or openly hostile to, what we perceive as our more enlightened/open-minded views. “I have to keep my mouth shut in Elders’ Quorum” and “nobody in my ward is interested in hearing the truth about Historical Issue X” are all-too-common refrains. We express a longing for unity and more open channels of communications.

At the same time, however, we hypocritically jump at the chance to find fault in those same members, with our most pointed criticism reserved for those in leadership positions. We further set ourselves apart from the pack by affixing labels such as “liberal” or “Liahona” Mormons. Were we to apply England’s vision of the Church, we would see the pettiness of such back and forth. Constructive dialogue and debate are healthy for, and necessary to, the building of a vibrant community. Bickering, however, serves only to divide us, and distance us all from Christ. How much more could we accomplish if our conversation was stripped of this infighting and prejudice?

There’s more to say, and further lessons to be learned, but this post is already too long. I hope that we can all take a second look at Brother England’s work and, as we do, that we dare to grapple with the questions he raised. Brother England, wherever you are, thanks for everything — although we never met, your words have been a ray of hope in my life.

I have actually never had any major personal qualms with abiding by the honor code itself. I think that I naturally fit the BYU mold close enough that I haven’t felt my corners get rubbed off by any restrictions or regulations. However, I have had associations with many who have not shared my experience.

I hope to take this chance to analyze the pro and cons of the honor code, and examine its effect on the BYU, and even LDS community at large.

The Church, and BYU as its representative, is increasingly image conscious. Projecting a wholesome image to the world is of tremendous importance, and in that regard, I believe the honor code is successful in doing so. I currently work at the BYU International Studies Center, where we regularly host scholars, ambassadors, and other dignitaries who speak to us from abroad. More often than not, as they make their tours throughout campus, they take notice of the atmosphere, and are very impressed by the modest demeanor of the women and the trim look of the men. BYU has in fact gained a strongly positive reputation in the international academic and diplomatic community, and is reportedly the talk of the town when all the foreign ambassadors gather in Washington to compare travel logs.

Likewise, BYU is a hot spot for corporate recruiters: representatives come from companies looking to recruit, and at BYU they find a wholesome, clean cut, value oriented pool to choose from. Year after year, BYU grads get job from employers who see BYU as a gold mine for hard working, honest, and upright students. The honor code could well be attributed as the driving force behind this image.

In many ways, I feel that I have the same personal goals as that stated mission of the honor code, to “provide an education in an atmosphere consistent with the ideals and principles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” However, I do see principled disconnect when I consider that an institution feels the needs to uphold its moral principles (many of which are grounded in personal agency and liberty) by enforcing legislation that leads to compulsion or ultimatums.

Last week was “Honor Week” on campus. One of the events involved students submitting honor-code-promoting videos to the “Honor Oscars” (or something like that,) and the winning video would be shown the freshman at new student orientation in the fall. I saw a TV news spot about this where a finalist was interviewed and asked about the honor code. He said something to the effect of “…the honor code is important…it keeps us doing what we should.”

This is fairly representative of most pro-honor-code arguments; the emphasis of the argument praises the virtues it encompasses, and concludes with a “and the honor code maintains these great things, why would you be against it?”

The fatal flaw that I see in all these arguments is the implication that if the honor code didn’t exist, everyone would degenerate into lying, stealing, cheating, drug dealing, chain smoking, liquor swilling, promiscuous counter-culturists. If the honor code’s existence is justified by the fact that is it instills virtues, then the argument only holds ground if infact those virtues would be absent in the community were it not for the honor code. If that is true, then this argument is a terribly grim commentary about the community who at once wishes to be defined as adherents of the gospel of Jesus of Christ, but somehow feels it needs require a compulsory list of rules to maintain those morals. My understanding of Jesus Christ’s gospel includes the idea that obedience must be completely voluntary in order to produce its indented outcome. (Moro. 7: 6, 9)

Much more could be said about the honor code. On one side it helps in projecting a wholesome image to the world, and provides additional incentives for those who otherwise have no moral foundation to behave well. But on the other hand, it introduces a pharasitical framework of hedges around the law for the community to follow, which ultimately leads to “looking beyond the mark.” I am convinced that the pressures of conformity to the honor code more often than not lead to hypocrisy rather than righteousness.

Again, summarizing my stand on the issue, I am fully in favor of promoting wholesomeness and virtue on campus, but I find it somewhat saddening and unfortunate that a community that prides itself on inherent virtues and strong morals feels the need to establish mandatory legislation to enforce something it apparently already claims.

I suppose in the end, it’s up to the BYU administration to carry out the cost-benefit analysis of the two sides, and from the looks of it, it doesn’t seem like the honor code will be going anywhere anytime soon.

[Updated -- More on the story here.]

Apparently BYU (and the LDS church) have expelled BYU’s best baseball player for (allegedly) not attending church enough. Some questions for discussion….

• What do we NOT know about the story that the church is not able to tell us? (we should always remember that possibility)
• What do you think about this statement, “They said he didn’t participate in the ward enough, hadn’t been to church enough and hadn’t gone in and asked for a calling,”
• What do you think about this statement, “All the stake president would say was, ‘I hope you don’t hurt your son by making a big issue out of this.’ “
• What exactly does this mean?: “Documents viewed by The Tribune show the issue has pitted university officials and the athletic department – who back Walton, by almost every account – against the very church that runs it.”
• Is it possible that the church and/or BYU are trying to make an example out of him?
• Do non-members at BYU (let’s say Catholics or Evangelicals) who have signed their ecclesiastical endorsements have to attend church weekly, and hold callings in the church?

I worked as a tutor (American Heritage) to BYU athletes for 2 years while I lived there. I can tell you one thing — few of the BYU athletes I tutored lived up to the BYU Honor Code. I knew players who lived with their girlfriends. I knew many, many players who were sexually active. I knew many, many players who partied hard. And I knew many, many, many players who didn’t go to church at all….anywhere.

So this one does befuddle me a bit. What is behind this specific case? Why him? Why now?

Any thoughts?

I was able to get a hold of an Orem Institute course catalog, and was surprised to see the variety of classes offered—this wasn’t just the Sunday school rotation curriculum, they had classes like “Dating and Courtship,” “History of the Church part 1 of 3,” “Women of Faith” (which specifically noted “Men Welcome”) and many others. I figured I would go check it out.

The following Tuesday at 7:00 I made my way to Orem and found the institute building. I parked, got out of the car, and headed in. As I was entering, I was surprised by the unexpected environment and atmosphere I encountered. To explain my reaction, let me give a little background:

I should first say that I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy my experience at BYU and have a great deal of respect for the institution, its role in the community, and the positive influence it has on those who attend. BYU expects a great deal out of its students, and to standardize things, has established a collection of standards and rules regarding ethics, behavior, and dress and grooming known as the honor code. There have been countless discussions on and off campus about the pros and cons of the honor code, and my purpose here is not to attack or to defend its existence, but I would like to point out an interesting side effect. Because BYU is a church sponsored institution, it often acts as a quasi-representative for the church. In a matter such as how one should dress or behave, dictum originating from BYU can sometimes be construed to be church or gospel mandates.

Let me illustrate. I had a non-LDS friend who was attending BYU. He knew the basics about the church, he had read and signed the honor code, and seemed fine complying with it and co-existing with Mormons as long as he was attending. One day, I was showing him some pictures of a trip I took with some friends. One of the friends, a University of Utah student and returned missionary, was shown with some facial hair in one of the photos. My non-LDS friend looked in shock at the picture, asking, “Is he not Mormon?” I glanced at the picture again, verifying that there wasn’t a beer bottle or cigar in his hand, and seeing that there was not, replied, “Yeah, he is… what makes you think that he’s not?” “He’s got a beard!! Mormons can’t have beards, I read it in the honor code!” I burst out laughing out loud, as I instantly remembered that pre-David O. McKay, your Mormonism lacked legitimacy if you didn’t have a burly beard to match your top hat. I explained that the beard thing was simply a BYU policy, not a commandment.

But it gave me pause; as a community, BYU abides by (for lack of a better phrase) a “hedge around the law.” Again, steering away from the debate regarding whether this is a good or bad thing, the fact is that either by ignorance or by subconscious conditioning, the BYU environment has a formative effect on one’s sense of determining what is “appropriate,” what is “decent,” and what is “unacceptable,” in a realm that remains untouched by scriptures, or even modern Church pronouncements.

So, as I entered the Orem Institute, I saw people with beards, with hair that covered their ears, sideburns that went down to their cheeks, and overall images that did not seem congruent with what I understand BYU’s vision of student image to be. A few double-takes later, I had a “we’re not in Kansas anymore” moment, and had to remind myself that I’m not in a BYU building. As I shuffled around the building to find the registration, some skater-styled guy with shaggy hair came up to me, grinned, and said “hey bro, you lookin’ for the registration office? It’s over there dude!” I thanked him, and found that his grin was contagious. I quickly shook off the initial culture shock, and was very pleased to verify that the LDS young adult culture does indeed expand beyond the bound of honor-code conformity.

I didn’t feel any need to conform to anyone else’s concept of acceptability, but rather felt surprisingly in accord with the Church Educational System’s original slogan “I Belong.” In fact, I found myself having a perticular esteem for those at the Orem Institute, many of whom were UVSC students. They did not need to be enrolled in order to graduate, it was entirely voluntary. And based on the interactions I had there, I found they were much more concerned with maintaining a welcoming environment than they were with determining the length of my whiskers.

Before this experience, I certainly wasn’t naïve enough to think that the whole LDS community was an enlarged carbon copy of BYU, as I have spent considerable time abroad, experiencing the Church in multiple cultures. However, being a BYU student, the BYU snow globe is the reality that I interact with on a daily basis. If nothing else, it was very refreshing to see a sanctioned LDS environment that harbored a more colorful rendering of LDS young adults than I was used to. I plan on continuing to attend the Orem institute this semester, and I think I will very much enjoy it.