Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Networks Are How Humanity Works

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

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

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

Weak vs. Strong Connections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Epidemics

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

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

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

Four Types of People in Communities

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

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

What might these types look like in a church setting?

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

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

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

Can You “Friend” God?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My questions then are these:

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

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

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

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

  So, what does eternal progression mean?

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

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

Discuss.

The results run like this:

• High Self-Esteem = Having sex later in life
• High Self-Esteem =Increased Promiscuity – This means that they will be less likely to have sex, but when they do they are more likely to have sex with a variety of partners.  Although on average, higher self-esteem does have a protective effect (i.e. it lowers the numbers of sexual partners).
• Higher Self-Esteem = Increased chance of using a condom.  Although for the highest levels of self-esteem this actuall drops slightly.
• High Self-Esteem = Means they are more likely to use a form of Birth Control.

What this indicates is that if the Church wants to decrease the number of young people having sex at a young age then they need to emphasise building self-esteem.  However, this raises other issues around how the Church might do this and whether other problems might arise from having young people with high self-esteem.

So what do you think?

Does this sound plausible?

Is it useful?

How would the Church go about increasing self-esteem in the youth?

A middle-aged single brother moves into your ward.  He has been divorced for nearly 10 years.  He was married in the temple.  He has been inactive for many years and is just starting to come back to church.  He would like to go back to the temple.  During your Temple Recommend interview, he confesses to having had sex with a woman about a year after he was divorced.  This relationship went on for several months, and then he broke it off.  He has not had any other Law of Chastity issues since then, for over eight years.

Would your answer change if he had not been endowed?  Would your answer differ if the infraction had gone on longer or been more recent (e.g. 4 years ago or 2 years ago)?  Would your answer differ if this was a woman’s confession rather than a man’s?  Discuss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, where do you fit?

Discuss.

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

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

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

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

Do you think this is plausible?

Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’ve changed some minor details in each situation to preserve the confidentiality of the person involved.  Other than the small changes, everything you read here really happened to me as Bishop.  I was Bishop for 6 years in a medium-sized ward in the southwestern U.S.

So let’s start out with this week’s installment of “You’re the Bishop.”

There is a YW in your ward that is 16.  She lives with a non-member mother who does not place any restrictions on her.  Her father is remarried and very active and lives out of town.  The girl chose to live with her mother, so she can pretty much do what she wants.  But she has several good friends in the ward, and she craves he friendship and attention she gets in church.

She is VERY well endowed and wears very low cut tops to all church meetings.  One gets quite a view when talking with her.  As bishop, you are on very good terms with her, and she has come to you several times with problems.

First, let’s differentiate between “bad” or ineffective behaviors that are commonly described and good or acceptable behaviors:

Bad behaviors or responses:

• Encouraging faithful spouses to leave apostate spouses, even when there has been no infidelity or abuse.
• Controlling behaviors.  Threats, ultimatums, and coercive actions to try to force someone back into the church.
• Being manipulative or intrusive.  This could include “love bombing” or trying to smother someone back into the church.  This can also entail crossing personal boundaries, going behind someone’s back, conspiring with local leaders, etc.
• Emotional outbursts.  Tears and tantrums designed to cast the person leaving as someone who is victimizing the parent, spouse, relative or friend through their departure from the church.
• Assuming that the departing person has committed a grave sin or simply wants to live a lifestyle free from the restrictive standards.
• Judgmental comments and other rejecting behaviors; making it clear that love is conditional on one’s being Mormon.

Good behaviors or responses:

• Listening with an open mind.
• Loving unconditionally, regardless of level of belief.  Making it clear that the person is loved as much as before.
• Sharing one’s own personal doubts that demonstrate acceptance of the person’s struggle and empathy.

Clearly, it’s easy for someone leaving the church to see these “bad behaviors” as being another flaw of the organization they have chosen to leave.  Given that there is so much variety in experience, it seems that there are three things at play:  the family’s traits, the departing individual’s traits, and to a lesser extent, the organizational culture.

Clearly, some of the drama can occur because of how the departing person handles it.  Even absent “bad behaviors” on their part (e.g. yelling, blaming, etc.) there is still some inherent tension whenever someone leaves:

• Rejection.  When someone leaves the church, they are rejecting something that those family members still embrace.  The reaction is the same whenever you choose to leave an organization or you change your views – you now have one less thing in common, and that’s got to have some impact.  If you like Mac computers, but your spouse is into PCs, that is an area of contention that will result in two separate laptops in  your household.
• Family traits. Family members often share common traits when it comes to dealing with conflict and even how they view their religion.  IOW, when a person who is leaving the church sees their family’s way of being church members, they may recognize that those are the same behaviors they had as church members and now find those traits irritating.  Criticizing your family is often criticizing yourself.
• Definition of “bad behaviors.” Some departing individuals may be too sensitive or have too high expectations for the reception their announcement will receive.  It’s probably best for both sides to cut each other more slack.  For example, some of the above “bad behaviors” clearly have some good intentions behind them.  They are just ineffective and can be offensive or lacking in empathy.  But perhaps they are the best way some people know how to respond.

So, what behaviors can be traced to the church as an organization?

• Leader counsel. There is mixed counsel from leaders when it comes to how to address family members of different faith levels.  Most recent counsel is geared toward inclusion (E. Wirthlin and E. Cook’s recent talks are good examples of this), but some counsel seems a bit more conditional, focusing on not encouraging sin through acceptance of behavior outside the standards (E. Oaks‘ recent GC talk).  Given that the counsel is mixed, I personally see this as further evidence that parents and family members hear what they want to hear and behave the way they are predisposed to behave, feeling justified based on reinforcement from leaders, even though different leaders have approached this issue different ways.
• Culture.  Do members typically reject those who have left the church, or do they seek to understand and continue to love them even though they no longer share a faith?  My experience has been very low drama and accepting, both in my own family and in the wards I have been in.  Perhaps that is not typical of other wards or areas of the church as evidenced by these stories.  What are your experiences?
• Eternal Family Doctrine.  This just ups the ante.  We do view our family units as eternal, so actions of family members have some sort of significance on each other.  Because there is lack of clarity what exactly will happen after this life, family members often fear the worst and “freak out” when someone leaves the church.  Personally, I think this one is just fear overcoming one’s better judgment.

Why does the organization often get blamed for things that are family traits?

• Too close to home.  It’s a little easier to blame the church (one more step removed from yourself than your family is).  After all, you have chosen to leave the church, but even if you wanted to, you can’t really leave your family.
• Bigger target.  Organizations are easy scapegoats because they are larger than what we can control; whether it’s your company, the government, or a retail chain, it’s easy to personify an organization and imbue it with the personality traits of a few of its representatives, employees or members.  Especially if you decide that you dislike that organization.
• Defensiveness.  When family members come out in defense of the church, those who have rejected the church may feel that the family member has chosen the church over them.

So, what do you think?  What bad behaviors have you seen from the faithful when someone leaves the church?  Is that typical or not?  Does the church foster good or bad behaviors with regard to apostate family members?  Are individuals more accountable for those behaviors or is the church?  Discuss.

Not sure a Kindle is right for you?  Well, I’m not sure either.  Here are some pros & cons to consider:

• Books are cheaper, especially classics which are nearly free (no copyrights to deal with – I got the complete William Shakespeare for 99 cents!).  Most contemporary titles are $9.99 vs. the usual list price of $12.99 – 17.99.
• You can store ~1500 books in one lightweight device
• It’s very lightweight, a vast improvement over taking actual books with me on my travels.
• The screen is easy to read and navigation is pretty simple.
• I get less eye strain than with my Blackberry:  the screen is not backlit, so it’s not like a computer screen.  You have to use a reading or book light if you need to light it up, as with a book.  You can change the size of the text to make it bigger or smaller.
• You can wirelessly browse and buy new books (via Amazon) whenever you want from the device.
• You can upload pdfs directly into the device for easy viewing while you are traveling.
• You can bookmark, highlight passages and make notes as you go right within the text of the book.
• You can download the first chapter of just about anything in the Amazon Kindle store to see if you want to buy it.  The sample chapter saves on your device until you delete.
• In addition to books, you can get newspapers, magazines and blogs like Mormon Matters.  The content is there, although the interactivity is generally not available (e.g. commenting) as it is with online content.

On the downside:

• The device is expensive – over $250, so you should be an avid reader to make it worth your while.
• Not all books are available – none of the Harry Potters are, for example, but there were 60+ screens of LDS titles.  There are many many titles available.  You can check the Kindle store on Amazon.com to see if a book you are interested is available.
• Different books have different navigation abilities – some are better put together than others.
• I have an unused $50 GC to Barnes & Noble.  Maybe I can use it to buy books for other people.  
• I think it might be easy to steal the device and re-register it.  Not that I’m recommending that.  Of course, how many Kindle thiefs are really out there?  Bookish con artists – maybe Sawyer from Lost.  He reads a lot.
• You can’t turn it on during takeoff or landing on flights (because it’s an electronic device).  So I guess you’re stuck reading the SkyMall catalog or chatting up your neighbor.

If you are a techy or bookworm, you may already have one.   If so, what’s your assessment?  If not, is there a Kindle in your future?  Discuss.

Let’s first tackle the implications of the different things we might follow:

• The Prophet. Even toddlers are taught the song “Follow the Prophet,” not a personal favorite either musically (it’s the ”100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall” of the Primary songbook) or lyrically (the line “if you don’t believe me / go and watch the news” sounds like something Archie Bunker or Sean Hannity should be saying acerbically, not tiny tots singing sweetly).  Frankly, listening to an angelic chorus of youngsters sing this song makes Mormons sound creepy and cult-like.  I’d totally sign a petition to kill this song.  However, there’s no doubt that Mormons are taught to follow the Prophet, the living head of the church who is responsible to define the gospel for Mormons globally during his tenure (which only ends when God “releases” him / he dies).
• The Brethren.  This is similar to the Prophet, but generally includes all modern-day apostles, both living & dead, but all white (with an emphasis on the living ones).  Some would expand that beyond the apostles to include other high level leaders such as the 70, and possibly even the unseen correlation committee.
• Christ. Obviously, the purpose of the church is to come unto Christ.  Of course, this implies that WWJD covers all the scenarios you encounter, and that you feel confident in your interpretation of WWJD.  Of course many who wear a WWJD tee shirt are doing all kinds of things I don’t personally think J would D.  So, there is some interpretation here.  Are you really following Christ, your interpretation of him, your best version of yourself, or what others have told you?
• The Gospel.  Because there are many ways to interpret some aspects of the gospel for specific situations, this would usually mean the gospel “as you understand / interpret it.”  You might base your interpretation on some favorite scriptures, teachings of leaders, personal experiences, etc.  But your basis and understanding may differ from others’ in some particulars.  For cafeteria Mormons (and there really are no other kinds), it’s whatever is on your tray.
• The Spirit.  In Mormonism, this can mean different things to different people, but it generally means that when you need to know what to do, you seek personal spiritual guidance through whatever means have worked for you in the past:  prayer, thinking about it, dreams, reading scriptures or other inspirational materials, etc.  The more superstitious folks might use means like “Bible dips” (opening the scriptures to a passage and then using that to determine their course of action).
• The dictates of your own conscience.  This can mean using your own personal life experiences, wisdom, opinions, and preferences to determine your course of action.

A few times in leadership trainings, I have done what is called a Rokeach Value Survey.  In this exercise, you are presented with various values or life goals, most of which are probably desirable to you, and you have to rank order them.  This is done by comparing two of them and asking “If I could have A but not B, would I prefer that or to have B but not A.”  Basically, through this “false dichotomy” exercise, you determine which is your most dearly held value.  (Values considered are things like:  freedom, human love, a comfortable life, health, etc.)  Consider these types of dichotomies for yourself personally as you answer the poll.

• What if something a current Prophet says differs from something the Brethren have said?  Do you assume the prophet has more authority and is more timely than the other statement?  Does how you feel about what is being said (the dictates of your own conscience) change your feeling?
• What if a spiritual prompting differs from the dictates of your own conscience?  Would you take a leap and follow the spiritual prompting or would you assume it was indigestion?
• What if something the Brethren say differs from your interpretation of the Gospel?  Do you (generally) assume they know better and get on board?  Or do you assume they are mistaken and that your view is correct?

I’d like each of you to consider the following possibilities using this same methodology to choose the most important one to you personally.

Were you surprised by your results?  Do you object to false dichotomies on principle?  If so, get over it!  Discuss.

I was invited to contribute a blogpost now and then, and hope I’ll be able to throw some meaningful questions into the hopper.

I write under the name Ecumenigal because of my eclectic background and multi-faith points of view. I’m sort of a religious mutt.  I’m Mormon by heritage, birth, and culture, an atheist by upbringing, and now a sort of New Age Jesus Hindu with a great appreciation for Mormon theology as encompassing much of eastern and western thought.  In future posts, I hope to talk more about my vedic appreciation of Mormonism.

For this post, I want to talk about ecumenism and respect.

ECUMENISM

Ecumenism is controversial because some people are rightly concerned that in order to find the common denominator, you have to water down the teachings so much that they become meaningless. I have to admit that while I’d like to say, “We all believe basically the same things, so can’t we just get along?”… it doesn’t actually serve the truth very well to pretend there are no significant theological differences, or to re-define terms so that it sounds like we’re talking about the same things when we are not.  I see ecumenism as a meeting place for fellowship and bridge building, and talking respectfully and honestly about differences.

In my adult life, I actually joined the church for a short time, and was able to do so honestly by redefining the terms. Although I explained that openly to the Mission President and got his blessing, I just didn’t end up feeling that my membership had much integrity, so I took my name off the records but remained partially active.

I was really interested to notice during this experience how my Mormon friends dealt with this.  What I see going on is a church with a tradition of “One True Church” and “All other creeds an abomination”, clashing with the growing modern sensibility of religious pluralism:  “Celebrate Diversity”, “Respect Differences”, “Live and Let Live”, “I’m OK, You’re OK”, “Family of Faiths”, etc.  (It may be true that there are lots of early church teachings to support an ecumenical view, but the modern popularity of this view is bringing these teachings out more, I think.)

To be sure, when I took my name off the records, I had my share of visiting teachers pouncing, grilling and tearfully pleading with no real ability to hear what I was saying. However, the majority of my friends blinked away tears, smiled, and wished me well. I was told things like:

“God has a purpose for Buddhists being Buddhists, and it’s not for us to judge what that purpose is or where a person will end up in the end. It’s important to go where the Spirit leads you because God may have a purpose for you somewhere else.”

“You don’t have to be a Mormon, it’s just a question of what blessings you want to enjoy in this life.”

“To Thine Own Self Be True.  It’s important.”

Another example of a growing ecumenical culture in Mormonism:  Even in Relief Society I’ve heard discussions of ‘there are only two churches, that of the Devil and that of the Lord, and all followers of Christ are in the One True Church’. This included clarification by the RS teacher that ‘Yes, you can tell your Catholic and Methodist friends that they are part of the One True Church’.  What a surprise to hear that in RS!

RESPECT

In my family of Mormons and Atheists, respect is a big topic.  We can treat each other respectfully, but in the end, people still feel disrespected.  From my point of view, the Atheists almost by definition probably feel that the Mormons suffer from a delusion.  The Mormons almost by definition probably feel that the Atheists are blind to a whole dimension of reality.   Even if we refrain from speculation about the reasons for these delusions/blindnesses and speak with respectful words, I think that it is very difficult for either party to feel truly respected by the other because the worldviews themselves imply something about those who do not share it.

The only solution I can see to the Mormon/Atheist respect issue in my family would be if people were willing to say, “I might be wrong, and who knows, you might be right, and I trust your judgment, but the way reality shows up to me is…”   It seems rather hard to ask a Mormon to say “I might be wrong”, because culturally, “sure knowledge” is seen as superior to mere hope and faith.

I’ve noticed that I’m not particularly open to ANY absolute truth, because of what beliefs in absolutes would do to my relationships with people.  I try to hold my convictions while avoiding having opinions that involve other people.

The questions I want to throw out there are these:

Do you feel a conflict between “One True Church” and “Celebrate Diversity”?  If so, how do you work with or resolve that conflict?

What does it mean to be “respectful” toward others?  Does it mean just treating them with respect, and honoring their agency, or does it mean thinking in your heart they are really OK without your worldview?

Does truth loose its meaning and potency if you believe that others are OK without the “truth” that you are in possession of?

What would it mean to be a Mormon who believes “I might be wrong”?  Is there scriptural support for such a relationship to truth?

 Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

The Dialogue subscribers answered in the following way:

33.9% = Historical

21.6% = Teaching and Moral Theology Authentic; Historicity Doubtful

12% = Moral Teachings Sound, Historicity & Divine Origin Doubtful

13.7% = 19th Century Literary Product

I would have thought that less people would have thought that the Book of Mormon was historical?  Just in case your wondering, for those people who subscribe to Dialogue only 5.9% subscribe or read regularly FAIR.

Questions:

Are these results surprising to you?  If so why?

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!”

A recent article on cnn.com talked about the gaps in teen knowledge about sex, and their dangerous sexual practices as a result of their ignorance.  The article attributed this lack of knowledge and misinformation to a recent focus on abstinence in education rather than teaching about contraception.  Some of the misconceptions they found:

• 27% of women and 34% of men reported a belief that contraception would cause cancer (or other life-threatening side effects); as a result, many avoided using contraception
• 63% stated they knew nothing about oral contraceptives (“the pill”)
• 30% had little knowledge of condoms, including not knowing how to use one; 28% of men believed using two condoms provided extra protection (when in reality this “princess and the pea” approach causes breakage)
• 18% of men believed that vertical sex reduced the likelihood of pregnancy
• 40% of respondents fatalistically believed that contraception was irrelevant, that people get pregnant “when it’s their time” (I assume that means just those who are sexually active.  What if it’s “your time,” but you aren’t having sex?)
• 32% believed that the government encourages birth control to limit minority populations.  (I wonder how much of this group also believes the moon launch was faked.)
• nearly half of respondents believe that pharmaceutical companies don’t care about side effects, only about making money

The obvious next thought I had after reading this article was:  These are the people who are parenting the next generation of kids.  And  much sooner than they think.

Art imitates life.  A popular TV show new in 2009 is Glee, the story of an Ohio high school’s show choir.  Main characters in the show exemplify some of these sexual misconceptions and seem to be a not-so-subtle indictment of abstinence-based sex education:

• Quinn, the teen president of the Celibacy Club becomes pregnant.
• She convinces her boyfriend Finn that he is the father although they’ve never had sex because they had a racy make out session in a hot tub.  And he believes her!
• The male students admit that they only joined the Celibacy Club to hook up with the girls.
• The female students have a secret motto:  “It’s all about the teasing, not the pleasing.”
• A further dig is made at the “abstinence” crowd as Quinn’s baby bump is noticed (and overlooked) by her mother as she helps her prepare for a Purity Ball (a daddy-daughter dance to celebrate the daughter’s commitment to celibacy).  When her pregnancy is revealed (in song, no less), her parents kick her out of the house and their lives.
• Their teacher is equally ignorant.  His wife convinces him she’s pregnant (when she’s not).  She also tells him she knows the sex of the baby at 10 weeks (which is not possible, but he doesn’t know any better).  She also convinces him that he can’t touch her stomach or have sex with her without harming the baby.

So, time for some poll questions to see what you think about sex education.

Discuss.

I will freely acknowledge that being a woman in the church and bringing up a question about Priesthood practices would probably subject me to some derisive comment from BY types about how it’s as unseemly as a dog walking on its hind legs or some such thing.  I admit up front that I am not an expert in these matters, but I have been a member of the church for my whole life, and have attended many different wards across the US and some outside the US.

If you are a man in the church, you are either in Elder’s Quorum or High Priests, depending on the highest office in the Priesthood bestowed.  The lessons taught are the same (the manual is also shared by the Relief Society).  If you are in the Elders’ Quorum, you are more likely to be asked to help people move, to participate in ward basketball, and to administer blessings to the sick.  If you are in the High Priests’ Group, there are social activities for the men and their wives.  Uhm, which group sounds better to you?  Basketball + moving people or dinner parties with wheezing fossils (no offense to the wheezing fossils out there)?

Officially, an active LDS man remains an Elder until he is in a calling (such as a bishop or stake leadership calling) that requires him to become a High Priest.  However, there are a few exceptions (that I’ve seen in various wards) that can result in someone being moved from the Elder’s Quorum into the High Priest’s Group without having been in a “High Priest” required calling:

1. Age.  If a man in good standing is over the age of 50 (or lower for some wards), he may be either 1) invited to attend HPG based on age, despite priesthood level, or 2) ordained to the office of a High Priest to move him into the older group officially.
   • This seems a little arbitrary and could lead to hurt feelings or feeling disenfranchized for men who are older but haven’t been ordained as High Priests.
   • **In some wards, a very young HP will unofficially join the EQ based on age.
2. Organization.  If a ward has too few High Priests to fill all the roles associated with the High Priests’ Group, additional Elders may be ordained to fill these roles.
   • If a ward is too small or has too few to fill one of the two quorums, why not just collapse into one Priesthood Quorum?  This feels like ordaining people to justify unnecessary callings.  Aren’t there any programs to hand out or Primary classes to substitute for?  Is this problematic because the HPG is actually led by the Stake President but the Elder’s Quorum has a ward level leader?
3. Discretionary Ordinations.  It is not required for some callings, like Executive Secretary, to be ordained High Priests, but local leadership may (at their discretion) decide to ordain someone to the office of High Priest in this or similar roles.
   • Not a big deal I suppose, but it seems pretty arbitrary.  At least it is restricted to a handful of borderline justifiable positions and is less likely to create bad feelings as a result.

Why is this forced hierarchy necessary?  Doesn’t it bring out the worst in people (envy, pride, competition, and favoritism) where charity should rule the day?  Is it necessary?  Relief Society has been egalitarian (all ages) for a very long time.  While there have been issues in the past, it does seem to be getting better due to a few changes.  The manuals are more doctrinal now, less “family focused”; they are more applicable regardless of life situation, age, marital status, etc.  So, do men NEED to feel that they have a goal (aging up into a different class) in order to feel that they are engaged and participating in the church?  Is there a legitimate reason the Elders and High Priests can’t meet together weekly?  Is this some secret male testosterone-driven thing I just don’t get?  Discuss.

1. probably Elder Oaks or Elder Holland will be, or will have been,president by then.
2. I hope, by that time, the Lord will have seen fit to call one or two non-caucasians to the 12.
3. Some sermons in conference will be given in a non-English language, with simultaneous translation available for English speakers.
4. The Church will have, in some way, formally disavowed teachings on the curse of Cain/Ham and any teaching that the practice of withholding priesthood/temple on the basis of lineage/race had its origins before the Restoration.
5. There will be a continued outreach to the GLBT community. While the Church will not recognize or perform same sex marriages, it may well permit GLBT individuals in a committed monogamous union to retain their formal membership, but not attend the temple or exercise the priesthood (sort of like the Church’s current position on those who have undergone”elective” transsexual surgery and who join the Church or who are rebaptized).
6. Some sort of initiative will address the problem of excluding nonmember parents from weddings of their children when those weddings take place in the temple. My guess is that the automatic one year wait rule will be softened to accommodate those faithful members who wish their parents to witness the “for time” portion of the ceremony.
7. Women will be invited to offer open and/or closing prayers in general conference. A woman will be appointed as president of at least one of the Church universities.
8. The teaching and practice of women being permitted to join with their husbands in blessing their sick children will again officially become permitted and/or encouraged.
9. The weekly priesthood executive committee will be expanded to include the RS president and YW president. Presidents of auxiliaries will be referred to as “President”.
10. Another attempt at simplifying Church programs will occur. The three hour block may be reduced to two and one-half hours. It is possible that priesthood/relief society and Sunday School will be held on alternate Sundays.
11. Small Church post-secondary colleges may be established in Mexico, Brazil, the Philipines, and Chile. The tithing subsidy for tuition at the BYU campuses in the U.S. might be reduced to provide a similar subsidy to students at the non-U.S. campuses. Alternatively, the BYU campuses might be spun off entirely, in the same way the Church hospitals were. They would remain LDS in focus, but without the tithing subsidy. Or, if that does not occur, then greater equality of US and nonUs members might be attained by a greater subsidy to PEF out of tithing, in the same manner the Church universities are subsidized.
12. Small temples will continue to be built throughout the world, perhaps reaching 200 or 250 temples.
13. Missionaries will be permitted to teach in China and in many parts of the Middle East. The Church will strengthen its ties to Islamic countries and representatives. For the first time since the Church was established in Indonesia, the most populous Muslim nation in the world, there will be a serious and significant increase in conversions in that country.
14. The birthrate of LDS in the US will increase slightly, but not return to baby boom levels. Divorce rates will stabilize or drop somewhat.
15. As the baby boom retires, the number of senior missionaries will increase significantly, however, the relative proportion of members serving missions will remain steady. If Church membership of record increases to 20 million (about 50%), then the number of full the full time missionaries serving at that time will also increase about 50% (to 80,000 or 90,000).
16. The Church will once again begin making occasional disclosures of its finances.
17. Retention levels will continue a slow increase. Addiction recovery programs meetings (including pornography addiction support groups) will be part of this growth in retention, helping new converts (or lapsed members) address pernicious addictions in a safe, supportive environment, to return to complete spiritual health.
18. There will continue to be a strengthened emphasis on the Book of Mormon, and its teachings of gospel fundamentals such as God’s grace, free moral agency, redemption, and forgiveness. Further discouragement of the use of guilt as a motivator, and greater use of support and positive encouragement.
19. The Proclamation on the Family may become section 132, and the current section 132 will either be removed entirely (like the Lectures on Faith) or will be added as an historical footnote (like the footnote at the end of Joseph Smith-History).

So, these are my predictions for the church in the next 20 years.  What are your predictions?  Which of my predictions do you think unlikely?  Which do you think will happen?  Discuss.

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!

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!

The aggregator Mormon Blogs recently quit linking to a political blog called The Spirit of the Law.  Another blog, Legally-Bankrupt, also asked to be removed as a result of this decision.  This has caused a flurry of posts about the merits of the sites in question.  See for yourself:

The Spirit of the Law (original questionable post):  Can you be a temple recommend holder and support Obama?

Legally Bankrupt:  Goodbye to mormonblogs

The Spirit of the Law:  Dear MormonBlogs Directory Site

 So, a few questions this raises:

• What constitutes a Mormon blog?  Anything that talks about Mormonism?  Everything that’s not anti-Mormon?  Anything written by a Mormon?
• When does a Mormon blog cross the line?  When it makes Mormons look bad?  When it becomes anti-Mormon?  When it misrepresents Mormon belief?  Or is everything fair game?
• What Mormon blogs make you uncomfortable as a Mormon?  I’m not referring to those you don’t choose to read here, but are there some that you dislike because of the way they reflect on you as someone affiliated with Mormons (or blogging)?

Discuss.