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.

On its surface it was a pretty unusual activity. Every ward was to assemble a troupe of performers, write a sketch, then perform it on stage. Just before the show, each ward would be given some sort of twist that had to be incorporated into their performance. Apparently, most people didn’t understand the concept, and instead we were treated to a unique display of what Mormons consider comedy. In this case, it was a parody advertisement about Snuggies (those blankets with sleeves) that you can wear to the beach, and a PowerPoint presentation containing Facebook photos with in-jokes you’d only understand if you were a member of the ward. In case you’re wondering, we did “Good Morning Winter Quarters” which set a vapid morning show amongst the death and squalor of Winter Quarters circa 1846. (Sample—Female Anchor:  This is scurvy awareness month! Male anchor: I know I’m sure aware of my scurvy!)

Mormons are fond of comparing themselves to the Jews. We point out that we each have a dietary code, an exodus, and are even tagged with similar negative stereotypes. But we part ways when it comes to comedy. Whereas the Jews have a long and proud tradition in the comic arts, we’ve been a little more reluctant to tread there.

Now before we go any further, I should point out that there are funny Mormons out there. I used to perform with a comedy troupe that included several talented and funny Saints, Aron Kader has been blazing a trail with amazing standup detailing his background as a Palestinian-Mormon, and Elna Baker has achieved success in New York doing a mix of sketch and standup comedy, and has a memoir that you should all go out and buy a dozen copies of.

But I’m going to risk incurring the wrath of the internet by saying that Kader and Baker are the outliers here and that, as a people, we’re not terribly funny, or at the very least, we don’t place a high value on humor.

Mormons will tolerate a certain brand of humor that falls within the boundaries of The Donny and Marie Show and the Princess Bride… both shows I love. On one end, there is broad and corny humor. On the other side, the humor is cute and sentimental. In both cases, the comedy is broad, upbeat, and almost never contains a victim. Stray outside those boundaries, and there could be trouble.

For instance, one night I was trying to explain my religion to a decidedly tipsy and un-Mormon crowd at the Comedy Store and I told the following joke: “On the guilt scale, Mormons fall somewhere between the Jews and the Catholics. The problem is, God won’t let us drink to take the edge off it.” It got a big laugh that night, but the joke received a much colder response when told to a predominantly Mormon audience some weeks later.

I’m not exactly sure why we’re not good at telling jokes about ourselves that go much beyond, “how many Mormons does it take to change a light bulb?” (Answer: 5. One to change the light bulb, four to serve refreshments.) It may have to do with our practical nature built out of our pioneer heritage. Maybe comedy, which is often used to deflate the authority of those in power, just isn’t very compatible with a faith that values order and organized authority. Perhaps it simply has to do with the age of our culture. Compared to Jewish culture, we’re still in the awkward adolescent stage. Adolescents aren’t always good at having a laugh at their own expense.

But whatever the reason, about 300 in a cultural hall in Oregon who were promised comedy had to sit through a PowerPoint presentation that had captions like “don’t sue me” over a photo of someone who I assume is a lawyer. I may well spend the rest of my life wondering exactly why.

So what do you think? Are we really an un-funny people? Do you know any outstandingly funny Mormons? (Be nice, or at least funny.)

That all seems like a bit more than can be explained in a single line of a Facebook profile. Perhaps I’ll just put “Naturally Rabid.”

What’s your Facebook political affiliation?  Are your FB friends of a similar or different political affiliation than you are?  What’s the most unusual one you’ve seen among your friends?  Discuss.

Suzy: Dad, I’m sorry I scratched the couch!
Dad: It’s okay, just don’t do it again.
2 minutes later
Suzy: Dad, I’m sorry I picked my nose.
Dad: Yeah, we don’t pick our noses or they bleed.
2 minutes later
Suzy: Dad, I’m sorry I kicked the chair.
Dad: Yeah, it’s okay, don’t worry about it.
repeat ad nauseum
next day
Suzy: Mom, I need to tell you a secret.
Mom: Suzy, if you’re saying sorry for something, I don’t want to hear it!
Suzy: I won’t mom, I just need to tell you a secret.
Mom: okay
Suzy: Mom, I’m sorry I jumped on the floor.
Mom: Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
repeat ad nauseum for 2 weeks
on a car ride home one afternoon
Suzy: Dad, I need to tell you something
Dad: Sure Suzy, what is it?
Suzy: I’m sorry I kicked the seat in the truck
Dad: Okay, thanks for telling me, just don’t kick it anymore.
dad turns on music
Suzy: Dad…Dad…DAD!
dad turns down music
Dad: Yes Suzy?
Suzy: I’m sorry I pulled out one of my hairs.
Dad: Okay, okay, just try to sit there and listen to the music.
dad turns music back up
repeat, AGAIN, ad nauseum (yes, my child is obsessive/compulsive)
Suzy: Dad…Dad…Dad…
dad is ignoring 5 year old
Suzy: DAAAADDDDDD!!!!
dad turns off music
Dad: WHAT! If you tell me you’re sorry one more, I’m gonna lose it!
Suzy: I’m sorry I wiped a booger on the seat.
Dad: Look, Suzy, you don’t have to say sorry for everything okay!
Suzy: But dad, I’m supposed to say sorry when I do something wrong.
Dad: speechless

I’ve been on my daughter’s case since she was born. “Don’t do that!” “Knock it off!” etc. She also has learned to say sorry when she does something wrong.  Honestly, I never thought this would come back to haunt me in quite this way!

I’ve laid out so many things that she should and shouldn’t do, and she violates so many of them just by nature of being a kid. But it was getting extremely tedious when every time she opened her mouth we had a confessional! I told her to stop apologizing all the time. Of course that’s not really what I meant. When she told me she was supposed to say sorry when she did something wrong, I simply didn’t know what to say. Of course she should apologize when she does something wrong, but clearly not everything was wrong, or at least it wasn’t a big enough deal to warrant guilt and/or shame. But is it a big deal? I had taken the time to tell her (repeatedly) not to do those things in the past, how should she know what is a big deal and what is not? How should she know when she’s apologizing too much, and which things warrant a real apology? How should she know which rules are really the important ones to keep, and which ones aren’t?  Perhaps I should have been more careful in my criticizing her actions.  Perhaps I should have just let some things slide, picking my battles more wisely.  After all, a parent can only handle so many confessionals!

Butt-prints In The Sand

One night I had a wondrous dream.
One set of footprints there was seen.
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.

And then the strangest print appeared.
I asked the Lord,” What have we here?”
This print is large and round and neat.
“But Lord, it’s much too big for feet.”

“My child,” He said in somber tones,
“For miles I carried you alone.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and gained no strength.”

“You laid quite still. You would not grow,
This walk is not for me, you know.
So I got tired. I got fed up.
And there I dropped you on your butt.”

“Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must walk, and one must climb,
and one must rise and take a stand;
Or leave his butt-prints in the sand.”

My husband can do all the voices, but even without the voices, these are pretty spot on for style!

Top 10 Ways General Authorities eat Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup

10. Paul H. Dunn: “I remember back in WWII that I ate a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. Back then, they were big enough to live on for a week. Being the only soldier to have survived the battle in my brigade, I really didn’t know if I could eat it or not, but I remember my fallen buddy’s words as he died in my arms: “Paul, if you just take one bite at a time you can tackle anything.” So I took that giant cup and, breaking it with the bat Babe Ruth gave me after I struck him out with two outs in the bottom of the ninth in the seventh game of the World Series, proceeded to wolf down the tiny morsels.”

9. David B. Haight: “Imagine 70 years ago on a rough road between Idaho and Logan. There were no Circle K’s, no 7-11′s. You had to bring your Peanut Butter Cups with you. Ruby and I split one for the first time in 1937.

8. Dallin H. Oaks: “The Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup challenges us to consume. From the beginning there have been three steps in eating a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup. First, remove the wrapper. This is best done quickly, by turning the cup over, grasping the outer fold and pulling away from the bottom, Second . . .

7. Joseph B. Wirthlin: “When I was young I would sprint to the corner store, buy a Reese’s and run my hand through my hair before taking it down in one bite. These days I don’t sprint (pause), and I have no hair (pause), but the Peanut Butter Cup remains.”

6. Richard G. Scott: “If you have not eaten a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup, I plead with you. Eat one now. Enjoy the chocolate, the peanut butter. Do not delay. If you have thought, “That’s not for me”, I plead with you to reconsider. Of all foods I treasure, this one was the first.”

5. M. Russell Ballard: “The time has come when members of the church need to reach out to our friends and share a cup, a Peanut Butter Cup. It is not enough to raise a chocolate bar, it must now have peanut butter.”

4. Thomas S. Monson: “I remember I ate my first Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup when I was a tender lad of eight. My mother came up to me, and with a loving twinkle in her eye, asked, ‘Tommy, are you eating a Reese’s?’ And I would invariably smile up to her, ‘Yes, Yes, I am.’  ‘But Tommy, did you know that Sister Jensen next door hasn’t eaten a Reese’s Cup in years?’ My young mind thought upon the plight of my neighbor. Tears were shed. Hearts were gladdened. A cup was shared.”

3. Boyd K. Packer: “In all my years, I have always eaten my Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups the same way – the established way we have been instructed to eat them. There is a far greater evil in this world, though – those who believe they can eat their cups in a way unconventional to the time-honored manner. We must be true and faithful and eat our Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups in the customary and recognized approach as it has been established.”

2. Neal A. Maxwell: “I intentionally initiate the delicious design of deglutition of the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup by nibbling a negligible nit of the culinary creamy cavalcade. It is exclusively through small entities that the great things are fabricated.”

1. J. Golden Kimball: “H#%ll, Heber, I’ll eat a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup any d%$*&d way I want!”

First, a few of the articles with their key points:

• Entertainment Weekly‘s Owen Gleiberman asks and answers “Edward Cullen, stalker?  Yes, but so is the hero of the Graduate.” His point:  This is a novel about a vampire, so stalking is the least of his sins (he compares calling Edward Cullen a stalker to accusing Dracula of trespassing and sexual harassment).  He also lists many other films and books in which the male character could be accused of stalking (e.g. Say Anything, Pretty Woman).
• Entertainment Weekly‘s Owen G. talking about “New Moon:  why its girl-driven success is good for the future of movies.”  His point:  most teen movies are geared toward males, so teen movies for females (even unenlightened, quivering female doormats) are a step in the right direction.  He also lauds the lack of consummation as (kind of, in a retro-way) empowering to the female audience.
• Anita Singh of The Telegraph (a UK-based news source) reports:  “Twilight sequel New Moon is anti-feminist claims professor.”  The point:  New Moon is not only anti-feminist in its themes, but who could expect anything else from such a patriarchal backwards religion like Mormonism?  According to Prof. Sieber:  “This is a film full of gender stereotypes—testosterone-driven male aggression, females who pine away over lost loves, boys who fix motorcycles and the girls who watch them.”  As Anita Singh paraphrases Dr. Sieber:  “Bella’s choices are influenced by Meyer’s background as a member of “the highly patriarchal” Mormon church.”
• Religion Dispatches bloggers Anthony Petro and Samira Mehta reveal the hidden Mormon theology of the Twilight Series in a post titled:  Big Vampire Love:  What’s so Mormon about Twilight? They include such Mormon parallels as:  sealing and eternal marriage, chastity, and family values.  The post does not beef about sexism or anti-feminism and treats the religious angle with curiosity and respect, not disdain.
• Graeme McMillan of i09 wrote a post:  Official:  Twilight’s Bella & Edward Are In An Abusive Relationship.  This post shows that the relationship between the main characters in Twilight hits 15 of the markers of an abusive relationship according to the assessment questions from the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

Lest I get too far ahead of myself, here’s a list of the anti-feminist traits people have identified in the books:

• Bella is a typical “damsel-in-distress” waiting to be rescued and only comfortable when in the protection of a man.
• Bella never drives – only the men drive in Twilight.  They literally are the ones responsible for Bella’s direction and movement.
• Edward acts not only protectively, but crosses the line into stalker / predator territory. His controlling behavior is abusive.  (I suspect that abusive relationships are more the norm among those of previous generations, bloodsucking vampires, and fictional characters in general:  Edward hits the trifecta on this one.  No offense to Team Edward.)
• Bella suffers from low self-esteem.  After a breakup, she literally wallows in the mud.  Perhaps critics would have appreciated a nice Aretha Franklin R-E-S-P-E-C-T moment coupled with some cutesy shadow-boxing (a la Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail).
• Bella gets married straight out of high school, although the men in the books are all college educated.  One wonders what her fall back plan will be should Edward encounter Buffy the Vampire Slayer at some future date.  Slinging hash at the local diner?

Of course, many of the same criticisms (and more) could be leveled at The Little Mermaid (literally gives her voice away at age 16 to ensnare a man with her body language – wanting only to be a “part of YOUR world,” meaning Eric’s world, rather than making her own way) which we know was written by that uptight, patriarchal, right-wing, er, gay, show-tune writing duo:  Mencken and Ashe.

So, time to weigh in with a few poll questions!

[poll id="86"]

[poll id="87"]

[poll id="88"]

Confession time:  I haven’t read the books or seen the films, so I’m just reporting what has been written in the media here.  Regardless, that picture (above) is hawt!

Despite being single the majority of my adult life, I have never regularly attended a singles ward. I went a few times when invited by a friend or someone I was dating, but I saw singles wards as means to “catch” a husband and since I always seemed to have a boyfriend, I never embraced the whole singles culture within the church.
According to the traditional LDS time line, I was married before my twenty first birthday and any thoughts of singles wards were quickly replaced with all things newlywed. I was thirty when I divorced and was thrown into a whole new category of singles. Previously called “Special Interest Singles”(I had visions of riding to church in the romantic short bus)and now simply called Single Adults(not to be confused with the YOUNG Single Adults) Subliminal message: “you’re old and we have to keep you away from the kids”. There were some(my mom)who really encouraged me to go to the singles ward, but I was wary. Ready to be active again, I started sneaking into the sacrament meeting of my family ward and slipping out before the closing prayer was said. The rare occasions that I stayed for the whole block seriously tried my testimony. Mormons are the nosiest people ever and don’t hesitate to ask you the most personal questions within seconds of introducing themselves and shaking your hand. Explaining I was divorced after ten years of marriage, but had no children was such a foreign concept that I felt I had slipped into speaking Swahili considering the confused looks I got. So maybe the 30+ ward is where I needed to be. Maybe my mother was right.
Though rare, there are entire singles wards dedicated to the over thirty crowd. The membership is guarded closely by the bishop. He acts kind of like a bouncer, checking ID’s and making sure everyone fits into the designated age bracket. There was no way I was facing this experience on my own so I sweet talked another inactive, thirty-something friend of mine to go with me. He is hilariously sarcastic and even if the whole experience was a dud, I knew we would have fun mocking it for weeks to come.
I feel it necessary to give a disclaimer: I am a TBM, have what I would consider a strong testimony of the church, and know the singles program was developed by the church to address an ever growing population within our membership, but… it’s weird. I feel crippling pangs of guilt even typing those words, but if we need any additional examples of how we are a peculiar people, look no further than the 30+ singles ward. First of all, no one said a single word to us. Not hi, not get the hell out, nothing. Has that ever happened in the history of modern Mormonism? All our initial worries of being attacked as fresh meat dissolved when we were completely ignored. The meeting itself was dry as a bone. The talks were boring, but the oddest thing was the silence. I had never realized the white noise that exists at the typical sacrament meeting in a family ward. Cheerios hitting the floor, babies slurping on bottles, high priests gently snoring, and a variety of other noises like primary kids “whispering” and the rustle of diaper bags were completely absent. It was creepy. The cold reception was unusual, but the silence was the weirdest thing of all. Do we really need a singles ward dedicated to the 30+ members? Shouldn’t we be able to participate and function within a family ward and turn to the extensive singles activities for “wholesome” socialization?

The word gender is constantly in flux in the English language.  Here are some examples of the different meanings associated with the word “gender,” and how they might fit with the Proclamation on the Family:

• Gender is popularly used to denote biology (e.g. male or female sex).  This could be what is meant, that we were male & female blobs of intelligence who became male & female spirit children who became male & female citizens of planet Earth.  That we always were and will be male & female.
• Gender can refer to sexual identity:  ”an individual’s self-conception as being male or female, as distinguished from actual biological sex.”  This could be what is meant by the PoF, especially noteworthy since it specifically mentions the role of gender in identity.
  • Following this interpretation, there are related issues for the multi- (hermaphrodite) or trans-gendered because the church’s stance is generally against gender reassignment (transgendered individuals can be baptized, but not receive the priesthood, and individuals should not be baptized if their transgender operation is planned.  This stance does not specifically address hermaphroditic gender determination).
  • Additionally, some cultures embrace a third gender identity:  individuals who run counter to gender stereotypes (e.g. the Two-Spirit people of Native American tribes), a non-sexual gender (e.g. eunuchs or hijiras), or individuals who are “beyond gay and straight” (e.g. the Muxe of Oaxaca, MX).
• “Gender…is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons…of the masculine or feminine g[ender], meaning of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder” – Henry Watson Fowler.  Hey, I had to throw it out there, but that’s one of the earliest meanings of the word, and it does still mean that.  It’s just irrelevant to the PoF.  Or is it?  Grammatical gender assignment in languages is often different from language to language and doesn’t follow social gender constructs in all cases.  It is frequently arbitrary.  Kind of like social norms.
• “Among the reasons that working scientists have given me for choosing gender rather than sex in biological contexts are desires to signal sympathy with feminist goals, to use a more academic term, or to avoid the connotation of copulation.”  – David Haig in 2004, The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex.  Was the word “gender” used merely because the word “sex” might be misconstrued to refer to copulation?  Maybe so. Imagine the mischief of anti-Mormons talking about “eternal copulation.”  Oh, wait, they already do.
• Gender refers to sexual stereotypes that are socially constructed.  This is the interpretation of the PoF that seems most commonly held, although it’s problematic in light of the cultural origin of most gender roles.  Some sexual stereotypes seem conflated with biology (women’s bodies literally “nurture” babies in utero and potentially through nursing), while others vary greatly from culture to culture (e.g. men in kilts, Rosie the Riveter, female warrior societies, SAHDs).  If the characteristics are cultural constructions how can they reflect eternal purpose?  Coincidentally?
  • The term gender role was coined in 1955 by sexologist John Money, (prompting the question “What the heck is a sexologist?”). He said: “The term gender role is used to signify all those things that a person says or does to disclose himself or herself as having the status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.”
  • Elements of such a role include clothing (except as I recall I was born nekkid), speech patterns (swearing like a sailor?), movement (walking swishily?), occupations (what about SAHDs and female soldiers?), and other factors not limited to biological sex.  Clearly, nothing on this list is eternal.
  • Possible gender characteristics referred to in the PoF include:  By divine design, fathers are to preside (in some wards, this means ”fall asleep on the stand between talks“) over their families in love and righteousness (so, not like Pinochet) and are responsible to provide the necessities of life (like clean diapers and formula?) and protection for their families (clearly, this means killing spiders). Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children (nutritious take-out and microwave meals, for example). In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation (lots of caveats here, including the wide open “other circumstances”).
• From dictionary.com, we find a “Usage Note”:  Traditionally, gender has been used primarily to refer to the grammatical categories of “masculine,” “feminine,” and “neuter,” but in recent years the word has become well established in its use to refer to sex-based categories, as in phrases such as gender gap and the politics of gender. This usage is supported by the practice of many anthropologists, who reserve sex for reference to biological categories, while using gender to refer to social or cultural categories.  According to this rule, one would say The effectiveness of the medication appears to depend on the sex (not gender) of the patient, but In peasant societies, gender (not sex) roles are likely to be more clearly defined. This distinction is useful in principle, but it is by no means widely observed, and considerable variation in usage occurs at all levels.   So, I suppose the answer is:  “Your guess is as good as mine.”  Speaking of which . . .

So, what do you think is meant by the Proclamation on the Family?

[poll id="47"]

• Home teaching.  If God’s capable of reading the minds, and hearing/sorting through prayers from seven billion people speaking 1,000+ languages and dialects simultaneously here on Earth, surely he has a grip on the status of everyone in the afterlife.  And after all, isn’t it only blue skies and crying babies anyway?  So, I’m guessing that the monthly calls that everyone tries to avoid will be a thing of the past.
• Moving.  There was a time when we were moving 2-3 families a month into and out of our Ward.  I’m nearly moved-to-tears at the idea of not moving anyone in the eternal abode.  They’ll catch their own ride to their assigned home planet and start the procreating without any boxes, U-Haul, etc.  Wahoo!
• Church Welfare.  I’m not sure how many of you would enjoy sitting across a desk from a neighbor and telling them to dump cell phones, cars, RV’s, etc., to reduce monthly expenses, but I dread it.  With the celestial streets paved in gold, welfare shouldn’t be an issue.  Although it brings up further questions: is the gold only in the Celestial Kingdom, or do all three come equally-equipped in this area, and more importantly, if a resource isn’t rare anymore, is it really worth anything?  But I digress…
• Church Meetings.  Now here’s an interesting one to me.  After we’ve ‘made it’ will we have to go to any Church meetings anymore?  Since we’ll already know everyone else’s thoughts, I assume that we’ll know what that person would give a talk about, before the talk is even given.  I think I’m safe to say that Sunday may turn out to truly be days of rest in the hereafter.  Don’t get me wrong – I suppose that sitting in a chair for twelve hours every Sunday could be considered resting to a guy that works in construction, but…
• Travel.  There were few things that I hated more while raising my kids here on Earth than long car trips with children under five.  With all the child-rearing that will be going on eternally in the netherworlds, I’m really hoping that there aren’t celestial maxi-vans and that travel will be more-or-less instantaneous, like what we see on Star Trek, but with much larger teleportation pads that can facilitate a few thousand kids at a time.
• In-laws and extended-family reunions.  Since we’re all, ‘brothers and sisters,’ will we still be expected to visit in-laws in the hereafter?   I can’t imagine having extended-family reunions either, since a gathering of tens of billions would take some massive coordination, and that doesn’t even include the Neanderthals.  On that note, are the Kingdoms going to be species-segregated, or will we all get lumped together?  I enjoy the thought of seeing Fido again, but not so much being chased by the saber-toothed tigers and velociraptors.

So, what are the to-die-for changes that you’re most looking forward to in the afterlife?

Bishop Mike Young

spanishfork401stward.blogspot.com

For example, I remember hearing the song Blinded by the Light when I was growing up.  It seemed to be on the radio all the time.  For years, I thought the lyric was “wrecked up like a douche, you know the roller in the night.”  I had no idea what that meant.  Something to do with women in floppy hats on TV selling Massengill products I figured.  Now I know that the lyric is “racked up like a deuce, you know the roller in the night.”  So, apparently it’s about gambling, not about feminine products at all.

Or consider this cryptic line from Jimi Hendrix’s hit:  “‘Scuze me, while I kiss this guy.”  Hey, it was the 70s.  Live and let live.

And there are some songs out there that just defy decryption:  parts of Shout by the Isley Brothers and Fame by David Bowie come to mind.  I’m sure you can now find lyrics of these on line, but I defy anyone to figure it out without them.  I also think these are songs that are just partly made up as they go along.

Which brings us to hymns.  The hymns are actually written out, right in front of you.  So, how is it that people get the lyrics wrong?  There are a few varieties of botched hymn lyrics:

• Changed hymns.  I can think of two specific examples that are sometimes sung incorrectly because they have been changed from their original words:
  • 86 How Great Thou Art. Any convert to the church will tell you that the original lyrics are “the works thy hands have made” (changed in our hymn book to “worlds thy hands have made” presumably for theological reasons) and “I hear the mighty thunder” (changed in our hymn book to “I hear the rolling thunder” presumably for poetic reasons).
  • 85 How Firm a Foundation. The lyric used to be “You who unto Jesus for refuge have fled,” but was changed in the 1985 hymn book to “Who unto the Savior for refuge have fled.”
• Intentionally “funny” lyrics.  When I was a kid, we used to amuse ourselves by adding the phrase “in the bathtub” to the ends of the titles of hymns.  But there are also hymns that kids like to change to be funny.  There are two I can think of off the top of my head:
  • 30 Come, Come Ye Saints. Instead of “no toil nor labor fear,” kids have been known to sing “no toilet paper here,” a more fitting lyric for the pioneer trek perhaps.
  • 144 Secret Prayer. In Spanish, missionaries like to change the lyric “con el cielo comunion” (meaning communion with Heaven) to “con el suelo comunion” (meaning communion with the floor).
• Mistakes.  Some hymns are mistakenly sung incorrectly, at times changing the meaning of the lyric.

• 5 High on the Mountain Top (verse 2):  “For God remembers still / His promise made of old / That he on Zion’s hill / Truth’s standards would unfold.” Correction:  “Truth’s standard would unfold.”  He’s unfolding a flag, people, not a list of behavioral rules.  This seems like a telling mistake.
• 239 Choose the Right (verse 3):  “Choose the right / in all labors you’re pursuing / Let God in Heaven be your goal.”  Correction:  “Let God and Heaven be your goal.”  Not as really significant a mistake, but it shifts the focus from the worship of deity to one’s own exaltation when sung correctly.
• 76 God of Our Fathers, We Come Unto Thee.  The chorus says “Never! Never! Never from thee let us stray!  Ever!  Ever!  Ever to thee will we pray!”  However, I’ve heard all the Never / Ever stuff sometimes get tongue-tied and come out backwards, changing the meaning pretty radically.

So, what other deviations have you heard at church when people are singing the hymns?  Any Primary songs that have been modified by unwitting congregants?  Discuss.

For me, what sets “Saturday’s Warrior” apart from other Mormon entertainment is that, for better or worse, it has spawned several quasi-doctrinal ideas that still hold sway today.  “Johnny Lingo,” “My Turn on Earth,” “It’s A Miracle” — they all preached generalized Christian messages, such as treat others kindly, don’t judge a book by its cover, etc.  Only “Warrior” had the chutzpah to craft its own unique theology, courtesy of the Flinders clan.

Before getting to the nitty-gritty, I feel compelled to demonstrate my bona fides on this subject.  When I was a teenager, my father, along with a couple of like-minded friends, started a small community theater company, dedicated to the idea of presenting wholesome family fare.  Given that the founders were all active LDS and hoped to tap into the large Mormon community in Las Vegas, they spent the first several years of the company’s existence staging LDS-themed plays.  Part of my duties as the oldest son included spending nearly every weekend night for the next 2 years running a spotlight, manning a soundboard or selling frozen yogurt at the playhouse (yeah, I was really popular with the ladies back then).  As a result, I have seen “Saturday’s Warrior” more times than I care to count.  (I was also subjected to dozens of performances of “Starchild” (the sequel) and “My Turn on Earth,” neither of which have any redeeming value whatsoever and are best forgotten altogether).  All these years later, if you were to put the music on, I could probably belt out 95% of the lyrics before collapsing into the fetal position.

Here are four doctrinal/cultural issues that, by my reckoning, were spawned by “Saturday’s Warrior”:

1.   My Wife, My Soulmate:  At the beginning of the show, set in the pre-mortal plane of existence, a young couple in love promises to find one another in the next (Earth) life no matter what it takes. SPOILER ALERT — by the close of Act II, they run into one another in a park, feel an instant (eternal?) connection, and fall madly in love.  The message, sounded loud and clear, is that righteous couples who marry in the Temple are living up to promises made prior to birth, i.e., they are soulmates.  I still hear talk of soulmates all the time in Church settings.  Romantic, right?  Well, the problem is, Pres. Kimball debunked this notion over 30 years ago:

“Soul mates” are a fiction and an illusion; and while every young man and young woman will seek with all diligence and prayerfulness to find a mate with whom life can be most compatible and beautiful, yet it is certain that almost any good man and any good woman can have happiness and a successful marriage if both are willing to pay the price.

Notwithstanding this counsel, the idea of pre-ordained lovers still gets much lip service in Church meetings.  Perhaps that’s why Kimball’s quote is still the centerpiece of the YM lesson on “Choosing An Eternal Companion.”

2.  Let’s Do The Eternal Time Warp Again: This is my favorite one.  Much of the play’s narration comes through the voice of littlest sister Emily Flinders, who is waiting patiently to be born.  Oddly, when oldest sister Pam Flinders dies, she immediately sidles up to, and strikes up a conversation with, the still-unborn Emily.  Put another way, when we die, we all return to the exact same place we were before we were born.  So much for eternal progression!

3.  My Kid Was A General In Heaven:  The chorus of the title track includes the lyric:  “These are the few/the warriors saved for Saturday/to come the last day of the world/these are they, on Saturday.”  The main plot point is the journey of troubled teen, Jimmy Flinders (he’s the crestfallen swordsman in the picture above), to overcome temptation (“Who can survive? Who can survive?”) and realize his place among the Lord’s chosen in the latter days.  The notion that we are members of the most awesomely righteous generation that has ever lived — in your face, baby boomers! — certainly has its appeal.  Indeed, it is so pervasive that Pres. Packer actually made a public statement against it ont too long ago:

We continue to receive reports of the distribution of a quote attributed to me which begins, “The youth of the Church today were generals in the war in heaven,” and ends with the statement that when they return to heaven “all in attendance will bow in your presence.” I did not make that statement. I do not believe that statement.  The statement, on occasion, has been attributed to others of the First Presidency and the Twelve. None of the Brethren made that statement.

4.  It’s A Bird, It’s A Plane, It’s A Missionary:  OK, this one is not exactly doctrinal, but it certainly is an idea that has become ingrained in Mormon culture.  The comic relief in “Saturday’s Warrior” is provided by Elders Kestler and Green, who are the most pompous asses imaginable.  Working in their own “humble way,” they serve proudly but with few tangible results.  While missionaries have always held a special place in the Church, the last few decades has seen the rise of a sort of hero-worship of those young men (sorry ladies, you don’t seem to get the same respect) who leave house and home for the mission field.  Goofy as it may sound, in my mind, the treatment of Kestler and Green in the play set the stage for this trend.  Granted, they are presented as slightly dimwitted, but the show placed them on the same pedestal we still reserve for elders today (are your chapel walls lined with shiny plaques for the missionaries serving from your ward).

So, 35 years on, at least some of the the “folk doctrine” borne of “Saturday’s Warrior” still holds sway today, despite official repudiation.  For better or worse, that play still has prominent place in popular culture.  Am I the only one with love in my soul for the Flinders family?  Am I overstating the case about their influence on modern Mormon culture?  If forced to choose, would you rather spend eternity listening to “Will Wait For You?” or “Everybody Ought To Have A Body” (from “My Turn on Earth”)?

This is why I love President Monson! He has the common touch and appears to love people.

If you watch the video linked above, you will see the news piece on Salt Lake TV. At the very end, President Monson ends the informal report by flashing a peace sign, saying “Peace!” and chuckling. I was completely enamored of him once again.

So watch him in the Pioneer Day parade and enjoy!

If you want to comment, feel free:

Would President Hinckley have flashed a peace sign?

Is this a subtle pro-Obama signal from our revered ecclesiastical leader?

Are Mormons just stuck in the 1960s?

For those of you who’ve never attended an addiction recovery group meeting, that’s your cue to enthusiastically respond: “Hi Andrew!” It’s important for you to welcome me and make me feel part of the group as I prepare to bare my soul and tell you the heartrending story of how I became an addict.

My addiction started in junior high, which is where I first gained daily access to inexpensive caffeinated sodas. My parents never had caffeinated drinks in the home, and when I was in elementary school my drink choices had been limited to milk (plain or chocolate) or some sort of juice. But when I moved up to the big leagues of middle school, we had a cafeteria where students could purchase Coke, Iced Tea, and other caffeinated drinks.

Give a thirteen year-old a couple bucks and a full range of junk food options at school and guess what he’ll do? I’ll tell you what I did: every day at recess, I bought a Coke and an It’s It ice cream sandwich for 50 cents a pop. By the time lunch rolled around, it was time to chug another Coke.

I became creative in finding ways to finance my addiction. Every couple days, I’d leave the house earlier than usual and ride my bike to the Von’s supermarket on the way to school. There I’d buy a few ten-packs of Juicy Fruit chewing gum for $1. Then I’d sell each pack of gum at school for 25 cents, for a profit of $1.50 per 10-pack of gum, which was enough to buy three cans of Coke.

When I reached high school, I gained the freedom to go off campus for lunch, which enabled me to hitch a ride with friends who could drive to a local McDonald’s, Taco Bell, or other fine eatery. Because these fast food restaurants provided their customers with unlimited refills, I was now able to consume at least two 16 ounce cup-fulls of Coke per lunch, or maybe three cups if I was especially thirsty or thought I’d need extra boost to stay awake in Math.

But my access to my drug of choice was greatly hindered when I went to college at BYU. I remember the first time I got to the end of the cafeteria line where the drinks were located at the Morris Center. I saw the choices: Sprite, Rootbeer, and a rainbow of Fanta fruit flavors. They even had Postum, for crying out loud! But I didn’t want a roasted barley coffee substitute, even if it was true that the Word of Wisdom commends the use of grains for making “mild drinks.” I wanted my Coke, my Mormon coffee!

When I went to the main cafeteria on campus, the CougarEat™, I found the same thing: an array of every fountain drink imaginable except the one I wanted: Coke or something with caffeine. There was obviously a conspiracy afoot, and I quickly learned that caffeinated sodas had been banned from campus to save addicts like me from ourselves. And save me it did. Being largely campus-bound as a freshman, I was able to break my Coke addiction for an entire year at the Y.

But when I got into the mission field, I backslid and turned back to my former ways like a dog returning to his vomit. While serving a Spanish-speaking mission in Colorado, I had easy access to the Devil’s Juice at the local Hardees, 7-11, or any other watering hole. And it was there in the mission field that I discovered other addicts like me. I once had a companion who was completely unable to function in the morning until we went down to the 7-11 at the corner and picked him up a Big Slam of Mountain Dew. He was a pathetic, empty shell of a man, but he made me feel better about myself simply by virtue of the fact that I wasn’t him. And because I could indulge my habit with him without feeling the least bit judged, it was really the best of both worlds. Sometimes when we were gearing up for a long afternoon of tracting in the Summer heat, we’d get hopped up on a couple Jolt colas. “All the sugar, Twice the caffeine!” read the slogan on the bottle.

But it wasn’t until after my mission that I hit rock bottom. It’s a period of my life I don’t like to revisit, but I feel compelled to point out the rocky shoals upon which I was wrecked in hopes that my fellow mariners of life might avoid my mistakes. It was the summer after I returned from my mission, and I was working two restaurant jobs. One at California Pizza Kitchen in the mornings and afternoons, and the other at a mom-and-pop Italian joint in the evenings. The biggest perk of both jobs was my unlimited access to all the free Coke or Pepsi I could ever dream of. I felt like I had won a Golden Ticket to the Wonka factory. I guzzled between 8 and 12 glasses a day, which had the unfortunate side effect of keeping me so wired that I couldn’t fall asleep at night. The upside was that I got a ton of late-night reading done that summer.

Fortunately, one of the books I read that summer, Lord of the Flies, so perfectly illustrated the dark, downward spiral in which I was caught that it awakened me to my awful situation. And as I read Orwell’s 1984, I think I secretly longed for my days at the Y when Big Brother removed my every opportunity to sin. One night as I read into the wee hours of the morning, I committed myself to go cold turkey the next day. I did, and it was miserable. I was a zombie, I couldn’t stop yawning the whole day, and I had a splitting headache. But fortunately, this only lasted a couple of days. And I was clean in no time.

But just a few years later, I had a total relapse. I was in law school, and I was experiencing the chronic sleep-deprivation of young parenthood. I couldn’t stay awake in my daytime classes, and somehow couldn’t manage to stay awake while reading my Civil Procedure textbook at night. In that moment of vulnerability and weakness, I turned to Coke to solve my fatigue problem, rather than relying on faith and prayer. My addiction was only further ossified when I began working at a law firm where, just a short walk down the hall from my office, there stood a refrigerator stocked with orderly rows of Coke, diet Coke, Dr. Pepper, Diet Dr. Pepper, and a whole panoply of verboten suds. These quickly became my crutches whenever I had a late night at the office, which could be quite often.

Today, I continue to wander this desolate path of sin. Only now I’ve moved on to the hard stuff, Diet Coke, which has significantly more caffeine than regular Coke. And oddly, my weekly Saturday trip to the grocery store to pick up a 2-liter of “Happy Juice” for consumption after church each Sunday has become a warped act of religious devotion for me. “Saturday is a special day, it’s the day we get ready for Sunday.”

Some interesting caffeine facts:

8 oz. Coffee: 100 mg. caffeine (may vary)

8 oz. Iced Tea: 47 mg. caffeine

12 oz. Diet Coke: 45.6 mg. caffeine

12 oz. Coke: 34 mg. caffeine

8 oz. Green Tea: 15 mg. caffeine (same tea leaf as brown or black tea, only not oxidized yet)

8 oz. Hot Cocoa: 14 mg. caffeine

8 oz. Decaf Coffee: 4 mg. caffeine

Based on the foregoing, it’s clear to me that I drink the caffeine equivalent of two 8 oz. cups of Iced Tea per day, and almost one cup of coffee. So do I and other Mormons like me need to be worried about that as a Word of Wisdom violation? We’ve been plainly warned:

Never let Satan or others lead you to think that breaking the Word of Wisdom will make you happier or more attractive. (Strength of Youth, 2001.)

The breaking of the Word of Wisdom is often the beginning of the breaking of many other commandments. (Principles of the Gospel, 1976.)

Despite these plain admonishments, I often see other Mormons flaunting their Word of Wisdom violations at church social functions, and in the church building no less. We once had a sister in our ward who, without fail, showed up at every church social event with a Big Gulp of Diet Coke in hand. I suppose she thought it would make her happier, or maybe make her look more attractive in our eyes. But we could all see through her facade. She ended up moving from Southern California to Utah, which ought to be a sobering warning to anyone who so mocks the sanctity of the church building.

At this point I’m just taking it one day at a time. It’s all I can do to stay balanced with this monkey on my back. I can now say I completely understand what Robert Downey Jr. meant when he told the judge: “It’s like I know I have the barrel of a loaded shotgun in my mouth, but I love the taste of gun metal.” I hope to one day find the inner strength and resolve to overcome my addiction. Who knows, if I get desperate, I may even have to book myself into rehab by becoming one of those thirty-something year-old guys living in the freshman dorms at the Y, which was the only place I’ve ever been able to stay clean for long. Fascism feels so uncomfortably restrictive, but you really can’t argue with the results.

So what about you? Any caffeine addiction confessions you want to make to unburden your soul? Have you been crawling into a bottle of Mr. Pibb to drown your sorrows with false promises of happiness? Are you one of those people that thinks drinking Coke makes you look more attractive? Has your caffeine addiction led you to violate other commandments, like breaking the Sabbath with a drive-thru run after church because you had to get your caffeine fix? And if you abstain from coffee out of religious principle, what makes you think your Mormon coffee is any better?

(Click here for an autobiographical musical summary of this post. The chorus says it all.)

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/29/mormon-coffee/feed/ 87 http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/10/little-mosque-on-the-prairie-what-mormons-can-learn-from-muslims/ http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/10/little-mosque-on-the-prairie-what-mormons-can-learn-from-muslims/#comments Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:00:45 +0000 Andrew http://mormonmatters.org/?p=391

What do Mormons and Muslims have in common? A lot more than you might think. And a popular sitcom about Muslims living in a small Canadian prairie town offers Mormons good suggestions about how best to handle being misunderstood and sometimes mistreated by the “outside world”.

People have been comparing Mormons to Muslims since the days of Joseph Smith, who was derided as an “American Muhammad.” Some even have referred to Mormonism as the “Islam of America.” Consider just a few of the remarkable similarities between Muslims and Mormons:

• Both accept the Bible as scripture as well as an additional post-Biblical book of scripture (Koran & Book of Mormon) brought forth by the prophet-founder of their faith (Muhammad & Joseph Smith).
• Both religions’ book of post-Biblical scripture (Koran & Book of Mormon) was intended, in part, to correct corruptions in the Biblical text.
• The two major factions in both religions split over the issue of succession, i.e., whether the prophet-founder’s family had divine authority to succeed the prophet-founder after his death (Sunni & Shia in Islam; LDS & [former] RLDS in Mormonism).
• The faction that does not believe in lineal succession in each religion (Sunni & LDS) is larger than the faction that does believe in lineal succession (Shia & [former] RLDS).
• Both believe in a pre-existence.
• Both have a health code that proscribes alcohol.
• Both have patriarchal orders of church government.
• Both struggle to overcome guilt-by-association-type negative publicity created by individuals considered by the majority/mainstream to be fanatics that fall “outside the fold” (e.g., Osama bin Laden & Warren Jeffs).
• Both groups receive significantly lower favorability ratings in public opinion surveys compared to other religious groups like Catholics and Jews.
• Both religions have recently been cited as reasons not to vote for a U.S. Presidential candidate (Mitt Romney’s Mormonism & Barack Hussein Obama’s contact with Islam in his youth).
• The words “Muslim” and “Mormon” both begin with an “M” and have six letters (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

Interestingly, a Muslim co-worker told me that the first time someone told her that he was  “Mormon,” she thought he was saying “momin,” which means “good” in Arabic.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times recently, Muslims and Mormons have been forging closer ties, facilitated in part by their common bond of being oft-misunderstood and sometimes mistreated by the rest of society. When Muslims and Mormons meet, it is easy for them to relate to one another. Consider these statements by a Mormon and a Muslim who were interviewed at a recent open-mosque day in my city of Irvine, California, at which over half those in attendance were Mormons:

“A Mormon living in an Islamic society would be very comfortable,” said Steve Young, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints attending the event.

“When I go to a Mormon church I feel at ease,” said Haitham Bundakji, former chairman of the Islamic Society of Orange County. “When I heard the president [of LDS] speak a few years ago, if I’d closed my eyes I’d have thought he was an imam.”

Muslims’ struggle to overcome negative stereotypes and to persuade others that they are good, normal, family-centered people is something Mormons can relate to. And that is the central theme of a popular Canadian sitcom, Little Mosque in the Prairie, which is set in the fictional small prairie town of Mercy, Saskatchewan. In this clip from the first episode, a young man who is to be the new Imam (priest) in Mercy has been detained at the airport as a suspected terrorist.

Little Mosque on the Prairie, Episode 1 Clip

This comedy series, which is available on YouTube for free viewing, is a fine example for Mormons of how best to deal with being misunderstood and sometimes mistreated by others: Laugh about it!

But in addition to having a therapeutic effect on its Muslim viewers, the show also serves as an invaluable PR tool for Muslims and Middle-Easterners in general. Nowadays, the most common visual images of Muslims and Middle-Easterners that North Americans see are people like Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iranian President Ahmadinejad, or a swarm of hooded men doing a rigorous monkey bar circuit at an elite terrorist training camp. None of these would be embraced by most Muslims as good representatives of Islam.

The cast of Little Mosque on the Prairie provide North American viewers with friendly Muslim faces to put in their place. After watching a few episodes, the show’s hilarious cast of characters will come to mind whenever you hear the word “Muslim,” rather than one of the many angry, finger-wagging clerics you see on the nightly news. Moreover, the fact that the Muslim writers and actors of Little Mosque in the Prairie can poke fun at themselves and at the awkward and ridiculous social situations in which they sometimes find themselves exhibits an admirable self-confidence and is an effective way of defusing (no pun intended) any unnecessary social tensions that exist between Muslims and non-Muslims living in North America. Little Mosque on the Prairie demonstrates that when it comes to erasing prejudice and creating familiarity and goodwill, laughter is once again the best medicine.

So my question for you is: Is there, or has there ever been, a Mormon equivalent to Little Mosque on the Prairie? Have creators of Mormon media succeeded yet in producing works with mass appeal that provide accurate and endearing portrayals of Mormons? If so, what are those works? And if not, why hasn’t it been done yet?

Late last night as I was putting the finishing touches on my Monday morning blog post, I heard a faint knocking on the front door of my home. When I opened the door I saw no one there, but heard the pitter-patter of little feet fading off in the distance. Something caught my eye on the doorstep. It appeared to be a manifesto of sorts, scrawled on the blank insides of a flattened cereal box with crayons of assorted colors. I have no idea who wrote the message, but whoever did was pretty upset about the talk that Elder Ballard gave at General Conference on Sunday. I can only speculate that they entrusted me with their solemn message due to my participation in the Bloggernacle. I am both humbled and sobered by the opportunity to give a voice to the voiceless, and I feel compelled to publish their statement here in its exact form, without any revision or alteration whatsoever. Here are their words:

In April 2008, Elder M. Russell Ballard, member of the Latter-day Saint Quorum of the Twelve, gave a speech in the semiannual worldwide General Conference in which he stated:

Now you children please listen to me, because there are some simple things you can do to help your mother. You can pick up your toys when you’re finished playing with them. And when you get a little older, you can make your bed, help with the dishes, and do other chores without being asked.

Elder Ballard’s focus on LDS children, and more particularly on the role and duties of children in the home, is a subject close to our hearts.

Who are we? We are children who differ in age, income, race/ethnicity, and grade-level. We are children of mothers and fathers, some with exceptionally large families. Some of us are grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We all play and work, paid or unpaid, both inside and outside our homes. We share many years of church participation among us. In fact, our LDS background is our common denominator.

Several ideas within the body of Elder Ballard’s talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are the authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true:

What Children Know

Children should have an equal say in what goes where in the home. We believe parents should abandon their materialistic desire to make every room in their home look like it came out of the pages of a Pottery Barn catalog with spotless, toy-free floors. Homes are for children as well as for parents, and parents must resist the urge to infringe on children’s right to design their own living space by imposing parental ideals about the optimal placement of children’s property.

“Making beds” is an arbitrary and futile exercise. There is no objective evidence to support the notion that having a sheet and blanket neatly spread and tucked around a mattress generates any added utility or is qualitatively any different from allowing bed linens to remain in their natural state after one has arisen from bed in the morning. Parental insistence on making beds that will inevitably become unmade a mere twelve hours later hearkens back to the ancient myth of Sisyphus, who was condemned to roll a boulder up to the top of a mountain each day, only to have it roll back down again once it had reached the top. There is no need for parents to attempt to recreate this hellish scene from Dante’s Inferno in their homes.

Doing dishes is harmful to the environment and is an unjust imposition upon children who would much rather eat with their hands in the first place. We are deeply concerned with the suggestion that children be exposed to harsh detergents and chemicals to clean dinnerware that they never opted to use in the first place. We children are instinctively more environmentally sensitive than adults in that we are naturally inclined to eat with our hands and to use our clothing to catch the crumbs and spills, rather than needlessly dirtying plates, bowls, cups, forks, knives, spoons, and other man-made culinary artifices that then require the consumption of precious natural resources such as water and the use of abrasive artificial cleansers to make them clean. And besides, doing dishes makes our fingers look old and pruney like grandma’s. Ewww!

We should be discouraging child labor, not encouraging it. The evils of child labor took centuries to eradicate in the developed world, and sadly, still exist in less-developed regions. The regressive suggestion that children should be performing more labor is alarming and threatens to undo centuries-worth of courageous campaigning and legislative lobbying against the exploitation of minors.

Children need to be challenged and given opportunities to develop spiritually. We lament the employ of intellectually condescending songs such as “Itsy Bitsy Spider” and deceptive celebrations of horticultural impossibilities such as “Popcorn Popping on the Apricot Tree” in Primary classes all over the world. We also denounce the brainwashing of children with songs like “Give Said the Little Stream,” which subconsciously condition children to give their time, talents, and energy to their parents without any expectation of receiving just compensation in return. Also, singing saccharine melodies with six year-olds stops being cool at age nine, or ten tops.

Violence against children should be condemned, not used as an example of God’s awesome power. We are filled with unutterable sadness by the story of Elisha the prophet, who angrily cursed forty-two children who were harmlessly joking about his bald head, upon which two she-bears came out of the woods and tore the children into pieces. (2 Kings 2:22-24.) This is not a success story. It is the story of a grumpy old man’s failure to take a joke. In a world filled with violence against children, we believe that one of the most important passages in LDS scripture is “suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:14.)

We are not fooled by parents’ transparent attempts to make us feel like “grown ups.” We have learned through sad experience that those who are constantly told they are “such a big boy” or “such a big girl” usually aren’t. We also reject the ageist assumption that children want or should want to be adults. The root words for terms like “adultery” and “adult-oriented” demonstrate that being an adult is popularly regarded as a synonym for being a total sleaze ball.

Please consider joining with us in affirmation by posting a comment below on behalf of your children, or on behalf of your inner child. We also invite you to express ideas and suggestions about additional positive declarations of our collective childhood that should be added to the list above.

Sincerely,

Children Who Know