Here’s the FAQ:  Are there restrictions based on race or color concerning who can join the Mormon Church and have the priesthood?

From the “official” response:

There are no race or color restrictions as to who can join The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are also no race or color restrictions as to who can have the priesthood in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. . . .

. . . “We believe in the old adage that many hands make light work. We have a lay priesthood, and every worthy man is eligible to receive this priesthood.”

Best answers:

• No.  Shortest is best.
• No, and I’m black.  It’s clearly less unsavory than a bunch of white people talking about how enlightened we are now.
  • “No. I am openly accepted, welcomed and loved by every member of the Mormon church. People are forthright and honest with their questions if their exposure to blacks have been limited and not once have I felt any prejudice only love, the love of Jesus Christ. Black men are accepted into the priesthood, and black men, women, and children serve alongside not only whites but other ethnicities. The church is extremely accepting of ALL races, ethnicities, and cultures and temples exist all over the world for all its members to partake of its blessings. Don’t believe the rumors, there are black mormons and there are mormons of different races and ethnicities. Only the adversary will promote otherwise.”
  • “Anyone of any ethnic or racial background is welcome to join the church. All worthy male members of the church can hold the priesthood.”
  • “I am proud to be an African American. But something i’m even more proud of is that i hold the Priesthood. There are no restrictions based on race or color. I’ve been a member of this Church for over 10 years and have never encountered racism within it! I serve alongside of brothers and sisters of all colors and races and hold the same priesthood of God as any other brother in the church.”
  • “There are no restrictions as to who can join the Church. We are all children of our Father in heaven and all of us are in need of his love, guidance and his gospel plan for us.”
  • “No, there are not. I hold the Priesthood, which is an incredible blessing for myself and my family.  For a time, there were restrictions, and it seems that there were some bad feelings towards the Church about it, but consider this…In my own personal studies, there was not a single Church or religion in the United States, or throughout the world in the last century who did not practice some kind of segregation or discrimination. Humans are far from perfect (Which is why we ALL need the influence of a loving God in our lives).  In the mid 1800′s, leaders of our church particularly suffered major persecution for allowing slaves to live and have membership among the Mormons and were tarred, feathered, beaten, and even driven out of their homes for it. In fact, in 1844 when Joseph Smith (The first prophet of the Latter- Day Church) ran for President of the United States, one of his major platforms was to have slavery abolished by 1850. This did not go down very well in a state that owned slaves as property. Like any other faith, people are striving to be better through living fully the principles taught by the savior, which comes line upon line, precept on precept.  With all this said, the Church that has an official declaration that is printed within Latter-Day Saint scripture announcing to the world that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a whole, do not permit any form of discrimination against color anywhere in the church. I am not aware of many faiths that have an official document like this included in pages of scripture used by all Latter-Day Saints.  There is great power in personal revelation and it can be given to all men who seek the Lord and have desires to know his will..It is amazing!!”
• No, we have all races in the church.  I think keeping this global and broad is how to avoid tokenism (see below).
  • “We have members of all races, from hundreds of nations around the world. The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that God “denieth none that come to him, black and white, bond and free, male and female…and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 27:33).”
  • “When I was a missionary in Detroit I had the opportunity to teach people of many different races and backgrounds, including Africans, Hmong, and Chaldeans.”  Chaldeans, like Abraham?
  • “No there are not…in fact while my husband was attending graduate school in Philadelphia, the majority of the people in the Mormon congregation we attended were African American. The congregation was also led by an African American…President Johnson. There were also entire congregations of Laotian, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Spanish, and Portuguese-speaking members. They were not divided because of race, but rather by language spoken so that the members could hear the Word of God in their own language.”
  • “I am proud to sit in class with African, Indian, Hispanic and Asian members in our ward.”
  • “Our members are from the vast majority of countries of the world.  They comprise of all races, colours, and peoples, from Mongolia to Mauritius, Russia and the Baltic States to Japan, from Ghana to Guatamala, from Korea to Brazil, and most places inbetween.  It might surprise some to learn there are more spanish-speaking members of the Church than english-speaking ones. Twice-yearly Conferences of the Church are transmitted to our Church Meetinghouses worldwide in more than 90 languages.”
  • “I am the branch president of a small congregation that includes white, Hispanic, African-American, Asian, and Haitian members. We fellowship together in unity born of the Spirit of the Lord.  I lived in Alaska for many years. Alaska is truly a “melting pot” for Mormons. Our stake included Tongans, Samoans, Hawaiians, Koreans, Cambodians, Vietnamese, Germans, and Native Americans along with white and African-American members. The same sort of harmony prevailed among us.
• No, and we don’t know why there was a ban.  I think it beats speculating anyway.
  • “No, there are not. The Priesthood (or right for men to officiate in the church) was not not available to men of African ancestry before 1978. We don’t know all the reasons why this was the case, but assuredly we rejoice in the fact that all worthy men may hold the Priesthood today.”
  • “Past restrictions appear to have been grounded in cultural, social and spiritual understanding at the time.”  If this is speculation, it’s got the benefit of being likely true.
  • “I do not know the meaning of all things, but I know that God loves His children of whatever tint and hue. I know that sometimes He sees fit to try our faith, to give us a tiny sample of the bitter cup so that we can appreciate more fully what He did in draining it to the dregs. I know that there are generational things that need to be worked out in all of us. I know that prophets are inspired and that the Lord has His reasons for everything that happens in His Church. I’ll be interested in finding out the details of this situation when I get to the other side but it’s not an issue now.”
  • “For reasons we don’t fully understand, there was a time when the priesthood was not made available to all people.”
  • “These kind of questions are very legitimate concerns. No, there is not a restriction. However, at one time this was different. I don’t have the answers but I do know that it’s too easy to get caught up in the thick of thin things and miss entirely the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Answers I liked slightly less:

• No, and priesthood is always restricted.  This is perhaps the least unpalatable explanation, but I’m not sure it makes a boatload of sense either since the church was being restored.  It comes dangerously close to implying it was a doctrine, not a policy, a distinction that I think we’ve been pretty careful to make.
  • “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines, as it was in the Old Testament when only the sons of Aaron and Levi were allowed the privilege. However, modern prophets were clear from the beginning that in the Lord’s time the priesthood would be extended to all races, just as the Gospel was finally extended from the nation of Israel to the whole world in the time of the early Apostles.”  A few issues here:  1) not sure the term “bloodlines” is accurate or relevant to the ban in practice, and 2) saying that it was clear from the beginning that the PH would be extended is optimistically naive.  There are many early leader quotes that contradict that.
  • “Priesthood had historically been limited as to who could hold it during ancient times as well as modern, for purposes known only to God. For example, during the time of the Old Testament, only one tribe of the 12 tribes of Israel, (Levi) could hold the Priesthood. In the New Testament times with Jesus only Jews could hold the Priesthood, no gentiles at all. It took a revelation from God to Peter that the Gospel could be preached openly to non-Jews.”  This is probably the best version of this type of answer I saw.
  • “Priesthood in the LDS Church is not a “right” or title. Rather, it is the authority to act in the name of God. Only those who live God’s teachings to guide their lives can receive it, and even then, it is only active when the priesthood holder is living in harmony with God. As a result, throughout history most people have not been given the priesthood. Not that they will never get it–they’ll just get it when God feels that they are ready for it.”  OK, this one sounds like he’s implying that blacks didn’t have it because they weren’t worthy (and by extension, that women are not worthy?)
• No, and women are still restricted.  I suppose girl power is great and all, but why bring that up?  Actually, the more I think about this, the more I think it’s a bit tone-deaf not to mention it when we’re patting ourselves on the back for being so color-blind.
  • “That is true, but the only restrictions now are dependent on worthiness… and gender, I suppose. Men are the only ones allowed to hold the priesthood, but it is part of a wonderful design to keep order. Women have just as much right to the priesthood as men do, but do not themselves hold those keys.”  You go, girl!
• No, and I know someone black who is a Mormon.  At best this seems like tokenism.  At worst, it reminds people how rare black members still are as a result of this practice, and points out (truthfully) that only one race was restricted.  This works better if the person we know is someone close to us, not if we knew some black person once who was OK with being Mormon despite the policy.
  • “No. Where I live, in the Washington DC area, we have a number of black members. Several years ago, we had a black member of the bishopric. One of the other wards in my stake has a black bishop. Gladys Knight, a black gospel singer, is a convert to the Church and has performed in our Stake Center.”

Mormon-speak:

• Into the Waters of Baptism.  “Since the beginning of the Church people of all races have been welcomed into the waters of baptism, given the gift of the Holy Ghost, and equally promised the highest blessings of salvation.”  I suppose it does point out the fact that we are baptizers by immersion, but it just seems like a GC-wannabe way of saying people can join the church.
• Bloodlines.  “For a time the priesthood was restricted to certain bloodlines”  Outside the history channel and the church, I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word “bloodlines” used.

Other interesting observations:

• Policy.  We seem to be pretty consistently in agreement that the race ban was a policy, not a doctrine.
• Ham doctrine & other racist protestant teachings.  Racist speculations about the reasons for the ban (e.g. less valiant in pre-existence) have likewise been put to bed.

What I might have said:

• No, and I’m black (but the picture might give me away).
• I would probably just say “no,” and that the church is global and includes members of all races.  I would probably not even mention the PH ban.

What would you say?  Did you like the member answers to these questions?  Different ones than I did?  Discuss.

Here’s the question:  Do you really believe there is a prophet like Moses alive today?

My initial reaction is that this is a weird way to word this question, but I suppose it was done because “Moses” is probably the only Biblical prophet most people know by name (who does not know the story of Moses leading the animals onto the ark?).

First, the “official” answer given on the site:

Throughout history, God has chosen prophets, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, and others, to teach the gospel and direct His Church (Amos 3:7). It is no different today. We all need God’s guidance in a world that is sometimes confusing. Because God loves His children, He continues to send living prophets. Joseph Smith (1805–44) was the first prophet of our time. Thomas S. Monson is God’s chosen prophet today.

Just as God led the Israelites out of slavery and to a better place through His prophet Moses, He leads His children today into happier, more peaceful lives when they choose to follow His living prophet. We invite you to listen to the words of living prophets and consider how knowing God’s will can benefit your life.

Answers I generally liked:

• Moses as an allegory for a prophet.  It’s such a stretch to compare someone as highly mythologized as Moses with someone who is as contemporary as Pres. Monson.  To do so, you have to point to the man in the Moses myth or the myth in the mantle.  It can be tough to pull off, but many here do it pretty well.
  • “Who was Moses… a righteous man, not a perfect man.”
  • “Just as Moses’ people needed guidance in his day, we need guidance in ours as well.”
  • “You must remember that although Moses was a great prophet, he was a man. God calls men to be prophets.”
  • “Without Moses to lead them as a living prophet, would the Children of Israel have been led out of Egypt? They followed the prophet.”  This was a nice twist on the meaning of “follow the prophet” implying following a person’s example and doing what they do rather than doing what they say.
  • “He has been taught the teachings of God, like Moses. He has embraced God, like Moses. He’s committed himself, his life, his abilities, his heart, to God, like Moses.”
  • “Well, I’m not sure how much like Moses he is, but we certainly do have a living prophet today.”  Hear, hear.  Stupid question.
  • “In 1831, a Methodist preacher named Ezra Booth asked Joseph Smith Jr., “Do you believe that you are a prophet, like Moses or Abraham?” The Prophet replied, “I don’t think that what you believe and what I believe are all that different. You believe that God used to talk to man. I believe that he still does.”"  So, apparently someone else asked this same stupid question 160 years ago.
• Practical & personal.  Those that shared personal thoughts about the benefits of having a prophet were generally on point, IMO.  Generally, I was OK with testimony bearing here under that same umbrella, although I’m not sure how well that works in this medium and for a non-Mormon audience.  My favorites were those who linked the topic to their own conversion story.
  • “I know as I have followed God’s living prophet it has brought peace and hope into my life.”
  • “That is probably one of the first things I marveled at, the knowledge that a wise and loving Heavenly Father could show His love by this simple act. What parent would not want to guide their children back and what better way to show His love than to still speak to His children today. The heavens are still open and in my mind it would be odd to think otherwise.”
  • “He receives revelation directly from God. Revelation that has guided my life on a personal level.”
  • “Yes! This was something I was so excited to learn about when I was investigating the church and being taught by the missionaries. Growing up while attending a religious school, I was always taught about the prophets of the Old Testament and amazed at what incredible men they must have been.”
  • “Yep. This is one of the things that I understood and looked for in a church. I grew up reading the Bible and loved reading how regularly and consistently God spoke through his prophets so his people received clarity and direction, as a people, when they chose to listen. People say that God stopped talking to men as a group after Jesus’ death, but that’s not so.”
  • “I have had the privilege of meeting in person President Thomas S. Monson, current Prophet. He is a joyful person. He makes everyone feel like they are his friend.”
  • “Before I joined the church in college, I didn’t think prophets would still be used by God in this day. No other church I had studied had this belief.  In my process of joining the church, I prayed to know if there was actually a prophet, like Moses, on the earth today. Not surprisingly, I received direct revelation from God that there was, in fact, a prophet, and he was at the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.”
• Personal revelation caveat.  I liked those few who remembered to mention the fact that all members of the church are entitled to their own revelation for themselves, and to be able to discern truth through the spirit, not just blindly follow others.
  • “My personal prayers guide my own personal life, but the prophet’s counsel guides the whole membership.”
  • “When God wants YOU to know something, he’ll tell you personally if you’re listening. When God wants THE WORLD, collectively, to know something, he’ll pick someone, and tell him–simple as that.”  I thought this was the most straightforward answer.
  • “This does NOT mean that God doesn’t talk to me. The Holy Ghost still gives personal revelation to everyone who remains worthy since their baptism and who does the work to pay attention.”  Another favorite.
  • “That is not to say that I am exempt from working on my own relationship with God. Just as the prophet receives direction from God regarding the doctrines of the church, the organization of the church, and instruction related to the church and priesthood, I too must seek inspiration and instruction from God.”

Answers I didn’t like so much, or that might sound strange to non-Mormons:

• Culty-sounding stuff.  Even just saying the prophet speaks for God can sound a little nutty to those not of our faith without some level of caveat attached.  Any sort of prophet-worship also falls into this camp.
  • “Follow the prophet. He knows the way!”  Cue the spooky music.
• Apocalyptic answers.  These are answers that sound like “crazy uncle” talk about the world ending.  Why is it that we think Evangelicals are nuts for raving about the Rapture, but we hear similar things at church sometimes without raising an eyebrow?
  • “I believe that as we near the end of the world that there is no greater time for us to have spiritual direction from a chosen servant of the Lord then (sic) right now.”
• “The world is bad.”  These answers sound like fear-mongering and tribalism.  Inside the tribe, they sound OK.  Outside the tribe, they don’t ring true because those outside the tribe don’t generally think the world is full of invisible dangers.
  • “It gives me great comfort in this troubled world that I can look to the leaders of the LDS Church and know that I can hear the mind and will of Jesus Christ.”  Implying you can’t get your own revelation, of course.
  • “today’s world is a vast maze of concerns that could be very confusing without a prophet to see ahead and warn us of impending danger.”  This sentence got more and more alarming as it went.
  • “There is a constant attack against the commandments God has given to us. Immorality, violence, swearing, and an obsession with wealth are hugely common. There are wars and natural disasters like no other time on this earth. God’s commandments have not changed, but an increasing amount of people are fighting against them. The prophet today helps to protect the faithful members of the church from the influence of those fighting against God’s commandments.”  This one sounds a bit on the culty side to me.  Also, I suggest this person needs to crack open a history book based on some of these claims.
  • “Prophets were around in the Old Testament to lead people, to guide them, and to protect them from the evils of the world. Great prophets like Moses, Abraham, and so on all provided the people of the time with valuable knowledge that was tailored for them to combat the temptations of a wicked world. How much more wicked is our world today?”  I don’t know.  How much?
• Unintentional doctrinal mistakes.  I didn’t see any biggies here, which is good.
  • “Our prophet is a wonderful man.  I have met one of his apostles, and the spirit around them is incredible.”  Wait, the prophet has apostles?  I thought they were Jesus’ apostles.  Also, if you’ve only met one, how do you know what the spirit around “them” is like?
• Mormon-speak alert!  Many of these FAQs have highlighted some words we hear a lot at church but almost nowhere else.
  • Mouthpiece.  Does anyone else on the planet use this word?  What is a mouthpiece anyway?  It sounds like dentures.

What I might say:

• The likeness between our current prophet and Moses is best taken allegorically as the challenges faced in our day differ from those faced in a mythologized historical tradition.
• Prophets are people too.  We don’t believe they are infallible.  Unlike Moses, TSM has not killed any Egyptians (so far as I know), but he is also not perfect.
• Everyone is entitled to the guidance of the holy spirit and direct personal revelation.
• While prophets lead the church, they sometimes speak as a man, and sometimes inspired.  It’s up to us to discern the difference through our own personal revelation.
• Prophets provide advice, guidance and inspired insight.  A prophet doesn’t absolve anyone from responsibility for their own choices and actions.

What did you think?  Do you agree it’s weirdly worded?  How would you answer this question?  Discuss.

Good or evil.  Material or immaterial.  Mind or matter.  Spiritual or physical. Even male or female. As this article from the Jewish Virtual Library describes, many of these “dualism” classifications have been used as the bases of philosophy and religions since primitive times. They seem to constantly reemerge after being subordinated to religious and philosophical principles of “monism” (oneness or wholeness).

Duality instead has nothing to do with two different aspects of reality.  In contrast, it focuses on recognizing that a single, inseparable “monist” reality does almost always have two (or more) entirely separable “dual” descriptions.  It is the descriptions of reality that are dual — like two languages used to describe the same concept — and not the reality itself.

In a way, duality was the key to the anomaly that sparked the entire quantum revolution in physics at the beginning of the 1900′s.  Light had been understood as electromagnetic waves since the work of James Maxwell, published in 1864.  The existence of such waves was a mathematically required consequence of the basic laws of electricity and magnetism that had been easily verified in the laboratory.

But as the 20th Century dawned, observations about light were beginning to pile up that could not be explained by any wave model.  Instead, depending only on the question an experiment tested, light seemed to betray either wave-like or particle-like behavior. Look for wave properties, and the experiment would find them; look for particle properties, and the experiment would find them instead. Even notions of everyday common sense would break down to maintain the insistence on light being both wave and particle.

Worse, when the wave experiments grew sophisticated enough to be applied to good-old-rock-solid matter, matter showed exactly the same stubborn insistence on being both particle and wave-like, too.  Everything in the material world turned out to exhibit the properties of these seemingly contradictory physical models.  Reality could not be so neatly compartmentalized according to the mental constructs humanity had available.

For a time, there was even a trendy word to describe things — “wavacle” — until people realized that giving something a new name didn’t mean we understood it any better.  Quantum mechanics, the science that developed out of these early shocks to our conceptual system, has only one reality.  But it can be described in at least two mathematical languages: the mathematical language of waves, and the mathematical language of “matrices”.

The languages were proven to be translatable from one to another before 1930, and so they must always make exactly the same predictions.  But the value in the notion of duality is that — just as some things are easy to say in German that are extraordinarily difficult to say in Japanese, and vice versa — the difficulty in making predictions in one description is easy for some situations, yet impossibly hard in the other description.  And in some other situation, the utility of the two descriptions is completely reversed.  Scientists needed two conceptually different languages to describe this one reality in which we live.

New examples of duality showed up with increasing frequency as people began to appreciate the explanatory power of the approach.  Some of the dualities that have been recognized are even more bizarre than the wave-particle duality.

Many of today’s best candidate theories for “quantum gravity” that would unite relativity and quantum mechanics into a “theory of everything” are collectively known as “string theory”.  They often have a property called “T-duality”.  In particular, T-dual theories predict that a universe, such as ours appears to be – of vast extent and expanding in size – is absolutely indistinguishable from an infinitesimally small universe which is shrinking toward nothingness. The laws of physics would dictate that exactly the same electrical and gravitational signals would enter our brains in either case.

If these string theories are correct, large and small are alternative languages to describe the same reality.  In fact, for all we can tell, we could all be living in an ultramicroscopic reality right now, with our brains arbitrarily choosing to interpret things so that the universe appears infinite in extent.

Then there’s the “holographic principle”. This idea seems to suggest that there are deep connections between modern information theory — the science that underlies telecommunications, including the internet — and the structure of spacetime itself. In addition to the way we describe reality, there appears to be an entirely equivalent way to describe it using one less spatial dimension. There are even reports that an unexpected effect predicted by the second description has been seen in equipment accidentally optimized for its detection.

So duality is not going away from physics anytime soon, regardless of what the philosophers and theologians have to say about monism versus dualism. Might it be fruitful for the theologians to consider what the concept of duality has to add to their debate?

In a way, duality as the existence of multiple descriptions of a single reality, Jesus Christ – “fully man, yet fully God” — is almost too obvious within Christian history. Indeed, the connection between the Father and the Son, with the Holy Ghost thrown in as a third description for good measure, is another application ripe for exploration.

However, what I’d like to explore in this and future posts is the question of whether and where we can replace the notion of dualism between the physical and spiritual in Restoration theology with the notion of duality, so that we can begin to conceptualize the physical and spiritual realms not as separate arenas of reality, but as two translatable descriptions of a single all-encompassing reality.

If the physical and spiritual are governed by principles of duality, not dualism, then things we do on earth may not just affect what happens in heaven, they may actually be the things that happen in heaven, and vice versa.

For example, in LDS theology, certain significant acts are directly sealed — made spiritually real and binding — through covenants marked by rites, while in CofChrist theology, ordinances are viewed as helps in the physical realm for spiritual purposes. But what if reality is put together to be more than these options? What if every moment of life is inherently sealed into the spiritual realm? If every relationship we enhance here is enhanced there. If every relationship we marginalize here is automatically diminished there as surely as gravity drags us toward the earth?

And what, from the other perspective, if the spiritual is acting as well in an ever present way, to seal the purposes of God into the physical realm?

Here’s the “FAQ:”  What is the role of the husband and the wife in the family?  I have a few initial concerns with this: 

• Is this really a frequently asked question?  It seems to me that it’s something we apparently want to tell people, but it’s not necessarily the sort of thing anyone would ask us.  Isn’t it kind of like asking your boss what the company you work for does?
• Why is this question listed in the “women” section of the FAQs?  It’s ostensibly about the role of husbands (last I checked, men) as well as wives.  Of course, there is no section for “men.”  Hmmm.

The fact that this question exists is already questionable logic, IMO. With that in mind, let’s proceed.  Again, the “official” answer is perhaps the least problematic (below, an excerpt), although it does link to the PoF (which I state below I find potentially problematic):

Both mother and father have a necessary and important role in the lives of their children. Parents’ work in the home will be more effective if their first priorities are God, each other, and their children.

A home that is safe, where children can grow mentally, emotionally, physically and spiritually, requires faith and the best efforts of the parents working together.

Answers I liked:

• Equality.  Those that focused on equality in parenting with no role-prescriptive caveats.  Most of the answers did this.
• Responsibility.  Those that talked about what parents’ duties are with regard to their children.  Many examples somehow lost the children in describing the role of parents.
  • “We are here to build self worth in our families. We teach our children to be kind, loving, charitable, helpful, honest and clean. We teach them to follow the example Jesus Christ has given us.”  I really liked this one, also because this was the entire answer; nothing even potentially offensive or sexist. 
  • “To turn out children into the world who are capable, responsible, and morally inspired people. It is a joint effort.”  I love this one.  And it’s the entire answer.
• Keeping it real.  Props to those who used personal examples to show their personal commitment to their very real marriages.
  • “My husband and I own a business together, so we share family and work responsibilities more than many Mormon couples. Because we have the same goals at home, we work together to make that happen.”  This is really the heart of the division of labor argument; the comment about goals was perfect, IMO.
  • “Individual circumstances sometimes require us to support and balance out our spouse in different ways. Husbands and wives work as a team. Sometimes my husband does the vacumning AND the laundry. A husband’s role as father goes beyond just providing, protecting, and presiding. They also play, discipline, change diapers, and do housework. A wife’s main role is to nurture. She cannot nurture other’s without personal nourishment. Her role may also extend to helping her husband provide for the family.”  I like that this contains personal examples and doesn’t exempt either spouse from anything that would have been considered traditionally the purview of the other spouse in a typical episode of Mad Men.
  • “But my wife is my greatest friend and companion. Knowing that I have been married to my wife not only “till death do you part” but for “time and all eternity” really makes a huge difference in how we treat each other and how we work through arguments. (yes we still have arguments from time to time… but knowing what this life is all about really helps us be as one more often than not).”  There’s some tenderness in this one that I like.
  • “I feel that spending quality and quantity time with our children is the most wonderful gift I can give to them. They are teenagers now. They are bright, talented, respectful, goal-oriented and fun to be around. They each have a fantastic sense of humor. Though they argue and annoy each other from time to time, at the end of the day they still love each other.”  Aside from a little Lake Woebegone effect, this is a nice heart-warming picture of a Mormon family.
  • “To me the most important role of a wife in the family is to love her husband, and my husband’s role is to love me. We work at that. We take care of each other, are kind to each other, are gentle with criticism or correction if it’s needed, and try not to take offense. I think that the best thing that parents can give their children is a strong and happy marriage. This doesn’t just happen, it takes commitment and a long-term vision, because life is hard and none of us are perfect at it. This perspective has seen me through short-term problems that otherwise could have ruined my marriage.”  I like this person’s focus on how happy marriages make for happy families.
• Humorous.  I’ll give extra credit to those who gave a tongue in cheek response to this silly, silly question.  Unfortunately, I didn’t see any answers like this.
• SAHMs by Choice.  Women have to own their choices.  Even though I’m not a SAHM, those who point out they are SAHMs who also add the caveat that it’s by choice win extra points in my book.
  • “My wife has chosen to stay at home and be with the children. This was the choice that she wanted and she is glad to do it.”  This is a nice contrast to those that say what women (in general) ”ought to” be doing, as if personal choice is irrelevant.  When we act on shoulds and oughts and don’t own our choices, we will inevitably experience regret later.

Answers that gave me mixed feelings:

• Equality + Role Prescription.  Those that mentioned equality, but also prescribed what men & women should be doing (e.g. women nurture & teach, men protect & provide).  I don’t strongly object to these, but they just feel a little too specific, and as I said, the entire question is one that no one outside the church would ever ask us to answer, so these PoF-centric answers point to the “hidden agenda.”  Equal but different, as we learned with civil rights, is not really equal.  The majority of answers fit this description.
  • “They work together as equal partners, neither above the other in the marriage. We believe the role of the husband is to provide for, to preside over, and to protect the family. The wife is to nurture her children in love and righteousness.”  ‘Nuff said.
• “Preside.”  Even when coupled with “equal decision making,” the word “preside” jangles (to me) and points to a “hidden agenda.”  To anyone outside the church it will sound like a throwback to “Leave it to Beaver,” and the word “preside” is nearly impossible to understand.  It makes me a little embarrassed for us.
  • “In all cases, husbands preside over the family. What this means is that they stand in for the Jesus Christ: their weighty responsibility is to direct the family as they feel He would if He were there.”  The WWJD religious twist is interesting here.  I’m not sure I’ve ever heard that “husband = Christ” idea before, but I’m pretty sure I don’t like it.  So, the husband is the only one who needs to be Christ-like?  And he interprets that for everyone else?
  • “The husband’s primary responsibility are to earn a living for the family, call the family to prayer and scriptural study, and preside over them in righteousness.”  Funny thing is, if those are all the examples of what “preside” means, it’s not exactly a great deal of power.  Why not use a more neutral term like administrative sperm donor?  (absolutely just kidding on that one!)
  • “The father is the patriarch and head of the household, but husband and wife should be equally yoked. They should make decisions together in love and kindness. Nothing should be handled in a dictatorial manner.”  The word patriarch is loaded for bear, and without all the caveats we attach to it will be a red flag to non-members who aren’t sexist.
  • “The husband presides, but does not dominate. They should act as equal partners, but as I indicated by the word “preside”, in God’s eyes, he is the first level of accountability in what happens in the family.”  Apparently, the buck stops there!  Wait, wasn’t Adam the quintessential buck-passer?
• PoF link or quote.  It’s not terrible, but there are aspects of the PoF that would be misinterpreted or easily misunderstood (for example, the word “presides”) and/or offensive to people.  Role prescription, even when followed by an “individual circumstances may vary” caveat can still create problems.  There’s a (sometimes hard to distinguish) difference between what is timeless and what is outdated.
• Ideal vs. Pragmatic.  Those comments that indicate how “blessed” or “lucky” someone is for having a traditional SAHM/working dad construct.  Not outright appalling, but also not a personal favorite.  I know there was some unhappiness in the b’nacle from SAHMs because they felt that the campaign highlighted career women rather than SAHMs.  My view is that variation should be represented without elevating one above another; what’s ideal to one marriage is untenable to another.  Can’t we just get along without being so judgmental?
  • “I am lucky. My husband is able to provide a good living for our family and I am able to stay at home with our children. I know this is not always a possibility, but I am grateful for my situation. I feel strongly that traditional gender roles create greater contentment and success in family life.”  It feels a bit like scolding those whose circumstances or choices differ.
  • “It varies from family to family, but basically if there are kids mom should be home with them if circumstances allow it.”  The use of the word “should” is always suspect.

Answers I did not like:

• (Unintentional) Sexism.  Even in attempting humor or light-heartedness, some of these answers came off tone-deaf to me.
  • “My wife’s role is to be perfect, which she does easily. Mine is to appreciate that.”  Actually I’m not sure if this is sexist.  It just makes relatively no sense.
  • “When people find out I’m Mormon, they automatically think I’m oppressed and considered to be beneath my husband. This is not true what so ever. Right now, because we don’t have any children yet, it is both our responsibilities to work hard and create a home. As I stated earlier, I am in school, working torwards a degree and my husband is the one who talked me into it telling me how important it was. Just because I plan on being a stay at home mom, doesn’t mean I don’t need an education. When the time comes, and we are blessed with children, my husbands (polyandry, anyone?) plans on working and will be the bread winner and I will stay home and be with our children as they grow.”  A few things:  1) if everyone else equates Mormonism with female oppression (which I question) then stating it makes everything you say afterward sound defensive, 2) the husband convincing the wife to get a degree as evidence of his not being oppressive is also (unintentionally) evidence of the wife being incapable of making this decision for herself, 3) I’m not sure anyone under age 65 uses the term “bread winner” any more, and 4) grammatical errors undermine credibility (“whatsoever” is one word, not three; “husbands” should say “husband”; “breadwinner” is one word, not two).
  • “The role of the husband is to honor his priesthood, provide for his family and protect them. The role of the wife is to nurture the family. She should also encourage her husband to honor his priesthood.”  Why is it OK to describe wives as cheerleaders to their husbands, but we never say that husbands should encourage their wives to nurture?  It just seems a little weird to say it one way but never the other.  To suggest men encourage their wives to be nurturing also sounds tone-deaf unless one is married to Susan Smith, in which case maybe it’s a fool’s errand anyway.
  • “This does not mean he “rules” over his family, but that he is the one who is ultimately responsible for his family.”  Whew!  I guess I’m off the hook then.
• Unintentionally Humorous.  Sometimes the mistakes people make in writing these up are just funny.
  • “Right now my husband is going to school and I am working and we are both caring for our Son.”  They are raising Jesus?  Otherwise, why is their son capitalized?
  • “Husbands and wife work together in a harmonious manor.”  Like an English estate?  Are there servants?  Pip, pip, cheerio!
  • One answer is basically an entire General Conference talk (including a poem, scriptures, and quotes from church leaders), defending the PoF against supposed claims that the church teaches that women should be barefoot and pregnant.  Aside from sounding a bit defensive, it’s about two thousand words too long.

What I might have said in answer to the question:

• I probably would not answer this question because it’s such a stupid question.
• Parents jointly bear the responsibility for the children in their care, to raise self-reliant and well-adjusted adults.
• Couples need to be flexible in how they approach their family’s needs as every family’s needs differ.
• Maybe I would share a personal example of how we both nurture the kids, we both manage careers, and we want to raise kids who enjoy pitching in to help, even though they manage to argue their way out of chores every week and still earn an extravagant allowance.

I’m not sure saying anything else is really warranted in my opinion – and even that much is sort of obvious, isn’t it?  What would you say?  Did you like or dislike the answers on the site?  Discuss.

Here’s the question members were asked:  Does the Mormon church endorse political parties?

This is the church’s official party line that was posted on the site:

The Church has made the following public statement on multiple occasions prior to major elections: “Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties. While the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, members are urged to be full participants in political, governmental, and community affairs.”

Here are some of the member profile answers I liked best:

• No.  Most of these were basically a recitation of the same statement that’s read over the pulpit regularly.  So, there’s clarity and consistency of message.
  • “No. The church does not endorse political parties. The church believes in free agency, and let’s its members decide which political party to join on their own.”  I like the shout out to free agency.
  • “No, THANKFULLY. I don’t believe any political party has the corner on morality.”  My favorite simple “no” answer.
• No + we’re not all Americans.  Thanks to those members who rememered that little fact.
  • “No it doesn’t. The Church has always encouraged Church members to be knowledgeable about political issues and to participate in the political process e.g. voting in their respective countries and at all levels of governance.”
  • “I personally know active and faithful members of the church (in the U.S. and worldwide) who are Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Tories, Labourites, Libertarians, Greens, etc.”  Yeah, for this guy who has met a non-US Mormon.
• No + 11th Article of Faith.  Adds a twist of “doctrine” to the refutation.
  • “I’m happy to say that there are members of the Church of all different political backgrounds. The Church does not endorse any specific party. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
• No + pray / vote conscience.  Adds a nice religious touch that feels universal.
  • “No it does not. It does however encourage you to pray before you vote to help to choose.”  I do have a weird feeling about the wording, though, which sounds a lot like, “it puts the lotion on its back.”

I had mixed feelings about these, although again, they were mostly pretty good:

• “No, we’re not all Republicans” or conversely, “No, as evidenced by the fact that I’m a Democrat.”  As they say, the exception proves the rule, but that just means that “the rule” is Republican, something I’m not quite sure we should be conceding.  It also rings a little hollow because it sounds like we’re protesting too much.  Frankly, I think that’s a good message for those who are aware that there are a lot of Republicans in the church (whether they are members or not).  It just has the potential to ring a little false if someone didn’t think that was a foregone conclusion.  And saying “I know some democrats at church” sounds just a smidge defensive like saying, ”I have lots of black friends” to prove how culturally savvy you are.  Yet I do know that political affiliation is a badge of honor for folks in a democracy like ours.  I prefer the ones that are more personal.
  • “I know many people connotate Mormons and Conservatism and the Republican party, but it is a misconception. I can say this as a devout Mormon and democrat!”
  • “I think our church teaches us to be as informed and educated as possible, and that’s why I am an independent and consider each issue and candidate carefully, regardless of party affiliation.”  Actually this one I like better, probably because I too am an independent.  In addition to being as informed and educated as possible (just kidding on that one!).
  • “I am a fairly liberal democrat, while most fellow Mormons in my congregation are very conservative republicans. It can be a little tricky at times, but Mormons are a kind and caring community.”  I particularly like the comment about a kind and caring community, which for me rings true.  Nicely done!
  • “The Mormon church absolutely does not endorse political parties. In fact, my husband and I, faithful members of the Mormon Church, both belong to different political parties. I feel that the platforms of both political parties endorse some good things and that no party has all the answers.”  I like the mixed-politics marriage angle here.
• Answers that are US-Centric.  This ran the gamut from those just talking about their own politics, and they happen to be American (not too bad) to those God-bless-Americans that sound tone-deaf to non-Americans (like most Americans sound to others).
  • “No, I used to think that all Mormons happened to be Republican, but they aren’t. I’ve met plenty of people in all parties. However, I think it’s safe to say, we do tend to be a bit more conservative no matter which party.”  I’m not sure I agree that Mormon Democrats are all middle-of-the-roaders.  Also, this forgets the 50% of Mormons who live in other countries.
  • “The Mormon Church does not endorse political parties. Members of our Church belong to both major political parties.”  Both the Tories and the Labor Party.  Right?

Answers I (in my wisdom) would not have approved if I were a reviewer:

• No, but (hint, hint) God’s probably a Republican.  First of all, just as it’s anachronistic to think of God as a Mormon, he’s clearly not an American, so associating him with contemporary political issues in our little square inch of the globe seems off-key and presumptuous.
  • “any political party that approves of God’s teachings, and lives them consistently, is more likely to attract Mormons. Likewise, any political party that prefers different standards, or opposes the teachings of Jesus Christ, will be more likely to offend Mormons.”  I am unaware of any political party that approves of all of God’s teachings or any political party that wholeheartedly rejects them, so this comment seems suspect to me.

There has been some criticism of the profiles, stating that it implies wider diversity of thought than one actually experiences at church.  While I think that may be true, I think it’s a natural by-product of the process:

1. Participants self-select.  Those who are confident in their uniqueness (and reasonably photogenic) will be more inclined to participate.
2. It’s on the internet.  The outlier Mormons are more likely to be internet-savvy than the stereotyped ones.  And younger members are more likely to proliferate the internet and have more progressive views.
3. There’s no “common” review process.  Each profile is reviewed by a team of 20-30 MTC employees who make personal decisions about what to approve or decline.  If there was a single reviewer, there would be more consistency of response.  This is better, IMO.

Here’s what I might have said:

• No, I’ve been in wards in the U.S. that were predominantly Democrat and wards that were predominantly Republican.  And I’ve known members outside the U.S. with a very wide spectrum of political belief.
• IMO, both parties are full of hypocrits and philanderers as well as genuine good guys who haven’t yet become hypocrits and philanderers.  Give them time.
• Generally speaking, members avoid discussing politics in my experience because they are polite and understand that politics can be divisive; most members recognize the power of politics to divide friends and families.  But as with any large organization, there are a few bulls in the China shop.

Have you created your profile yet?  Let’s talk politics!  How would you answer this question?  What answers did you like or not like?  Discuss.

To take a line from Shakespeare — a pox upon both your houses. The Ex-Mos and TBMs continue to argue past each other and never the twain shall meet. While the thought of a kind, loving heavenly being comforts and then closes the ears of the believer, the list of inconsistencies, logical disconnects and “anti-Mormon” cliches assuages and then closes the ears of the non-believer.

Unless you frame your debate, it will continue to be unproductive, each side creating their own echo chamber of reinforcement until the cacophony makes it impossible for anyone to hear what is going on.

Here is where I would propose to take the discussion: How do you reconcile the conflicts? To quote this guy I once read, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.” Bonus points if you can tell me who said that. The discussion then moves from cliche and rote response to a value and factual discussion in an attempt to find common ground.

For example: Blacks and the priesthood. The Word of God is for all of God’s children. You are punished for your own sins, not Adam’s transgressions (or Cain’s.) Racism is a rampant cultural and historical phenomenon which prompted violent conflict between those who thought racism violated God’s law and those who believed their race was chosen by God to rule over the lesser beings (both sides used religion as the basis for their beliefs — one of those contraries Joseph was talking about.).

The argument came to a head in the spring of 1820 (bonus points if you know what else happened in the spring of 1820) in the United States with a Missouri Compromise. The Compromise held the Union together for about forty more years until war broke out, but the entire time temperatures were broiling on the race issue in the United States. Northern (upper state New York) abolitionist leaning religions moving south into Missouri and southern Illinois were not well received.

Not surprising that depending on your viewpoint the ban on blacks holding the priesthood came from:
a) false doctrine;
b) the human capacity for self-deception while striving for self-preservation;
c) individual racism of some church leaders;
d) conforming to the current societal norms; or
e) some other reason arising out of the factual scenario.

The anti- and the pro- both believe that the whole racism thing was a bad idea, they just get there different ways. Conflict resolved, sort of.

So who is right? How should we define, the capital T, “Truth”? I’m going to come clean right now — I’m in the Joseph Smith camp on this one, at least for how to determine Truth. The reason I’m in the Joseph Smith camp is that he is also in the historical philosophical tradition of the American Enlightenment and the scientific method and he made one of the first attempts to apply that philosophy to religious thought. Joseph Smith also had a strong sense of American individualism — study it out and figure it out for yourself. How he succeeded can be argued, but I love the empirical, scientific approach to religion. (To avoid numerous digressions into atheism, geology, cosmology and science, I’m only talking in this post about applying an empirical, scientific approach to internal subjective experience.)

The scientific method gives us a mechanism for creating hierarchal judgments on different hypotheses — the hypothesis that is the most consistent with all the data is the most correct, the most true hypothesis.

Another way of saying this is Truth is inclusive. If you draw lines that exclude, you don’t have the Truth, you’ve left something out.

Joseph Smith believed this and it shows in his theology, for example eternal progression and baptism for the dead. He wanted everything included and this is a huge comfort point for believers. It leads to a Mormon mother’s common belief that a non-believing child can eventually end up in the temple and end up included, despite the past. What a comfort that must be to her, based on her own world view.

So I am looking at TBM’s hypothesis which says “my view is right because it is more inclusive, God’s plan provides eternal salvation for all mankind, even Ex-Mos.”

The conflicting Ex-Mo hypothesis is “my view is right because the reality and data coming out of the religion is that the religion does exactly the opposite of include all mankind, it excludes everyone except the elect.”

So there are the two contraries, how do we manifest Truth. In the spirit of Johnathan Swift, let me make a modest proposal: Eat the children to stop the famine (sorry literary joke that I couldn’t resist).

Seriously, the TBM’s hypothesis fails because despite the efforts of the Church at inclusion theologically, the reality is countless people feel excluded and some are even forced to be excluded by a process known as excommunication. Just makes the whole “one heart, one mind” thing seem a little narrow and false.

The counter hypothesis and its proponents equally fail because it fails to include the large group who devoutly believes. This makes it equally weak and equally vulnerable to attack by those believers.

My proposed hypothesis, neither of you are correct. I’ve studied it out. Thought about it. Prayed about it. I came up with the answer that neither of you were true. (Told you I was in the Joseph Smith camp).

I’ve observed 4 general categories of struggles that people have in the church (possibly in any church, and there are likely parallels in any type of organization):

1. Cultural. They dislike aspects of Mormon culture, may feel they don’t fit in, or may simply not want to fit in (“I’m a loner, Dotty.  A rebel.”).
   • Examples:  Church activities, social norms, opinions people express, how people dress, unwritten rules of behavior, church standards.
2. Historical. They find aspects of our Mormon history unsavory (even faith-shaking) and white-washed or misrepresented (and sometimes have been unpleasantly surprised due to only having known the uplifting “correlated” version).
   • Examples:  Polygamy, BOM origins, aspects of church leaders’ lives, doctrinal changes, restrictions on priesthood, temple origins, events from church history.
3. Doctrinal. They disagree with certain doctrines of the church or the interpretations of those doctrines they’ve encountered.  While there may be some overlap between historical events that relate to truth claims, it is possible to view these items separately.
   • Examples:  Mormon view of the atonement, Godhood, marriage and sealing, priesthood authority, ordinances, historical claims that are related to truth claims may also fit here, plan of salvation, the role of prophets, Temple Recommend questions related to belief, interpretation of scripture.
4. Personal. They have had a personal issue that has harmed them and caused dissonance with the church.
   • Examples:  marital issue, abuse, interpersonal conflict, depression

It seems that a person could have issues in more than one of these areas, or may find that they are less impacted by a disconnect in one or more of these areas.  For example, one may find historical facts like Mountain Meadows Massacre troubling, but feel that they are personally less important because of no direct personal connection to the historical church.  If an area is of high importance and is also an area of strong concern, that’s when people leave if they can’t resolve their concern satisfactorily.

[poll id="183"]

[poll id="184"]

[poll id="185"]

[poll id="186"]

It seems to me that for people who care very deeply about a specific area (culture, doctrine, history, or personal experiences), they are more prone to disaffection for that issue if something goes wrong in that area.  Likewise, if it’s extremely important to them and it’s going well, that can strongly solidify their commitment to the church.  What are your observations?  And which of these areas are most important to you?  Have they caused you any cognitive dissonance?  Discuss.

Clearly Facebook doesn’t cause infidelity any more than guns kill people, but is it bad for marriage or even worse, a catalyst for divorce to be avoided at all cost?

I checked the lds.org site, and there is no official warning to members to avoid Facebook at all costs, nor is there a specific suggestion that married people not “friend” those of the opposite sex (I’m fairly certain that the word “friend” is not used as a verb anywhere on lds.org, and if it were it would probably mean sending a copy of the children’s magazine to someone).  In fact, the church is active in social media (including Facebook and Twitter), using it as both a proselyting tool, and as a method to organize charitable endeavors.

From what I can see, Facebook has made it easier for exes to find one another, and so the one marital danger that exists is that someone will reconnect with an old flame (or an almost flame) which can lead to a rekindling of feelings (or emotional manipulation and bad choices – whatever).  And yes, prior to Facebook, it would be difficult for people to find these known individuals; adulterers would presumably have to resort to random hookups with strangers in bars and airports back in the good ol’ days rather than someone from their past.  Clearly, a determined adulterer wasn’t likely to be deterred by a little thing like lack of internet social networking.  But let’s remember, David & Bathsheba weren’t pen pals.  From Facebook to bedroom, there are some intermediate steps and choices being made.  There are some Facebook behaviors that might be ill-advised for those who want to stay faithfully married:

• keeping secrets from your spouse
• emotional affairs, building more intimacy with a friend of the opposite sex than you do with your spouse (these seem to lead to physical affairs)
• posting revealing pictures of oneself
• expressing neediness through status updates (making one vulnerable to emotional manipulators).  This is the Facebook equivalent to the secular admonishment not to “dial drunk.”

Yet for all its flaws, I can’t help but love Facebook for reconnecting me with old friends, helping me stay in touch with relatives in the most low effort way possible, allowing me to avoid all future high school reunions, providing me with dozens of unsolicited yet universally enthusiastic birthday greetings, and providing me with endless hours of marginal enjoyment through applications like Scramble.

When it comes to Facebook and marriage, what’s your opinion?

[poll id="182"]

Have you friended or been friended by an ex?  Has a FB friend ever made you feel uncomfortable or gotten too personal?  Do you have concerns with your spouse’s Facebook use?  Discuss.

• I like the idea of Jesus as a lawyer for humanity.  Having a defense attorney, someone totally in your court who will fight for your cause is enormously appealing to me.
• I like the symbolism of the atonement:  olive press (Gethsemane), the name “at one” ment, the mingling of the divine and the human.
• I like the idea of Bodhisattva, a voluntary sacrifice for others.  But I like it more as one who might sacrifice than as one who would be the recipient of the sacrifice.  Similarly, I’m somewhat uncomfortable receiving gifts.  Although I’m not that comfortable giving them either.  So there you go.

What I have generally not loved about the concept of “atonement”:

• that it creates a religion of losers, appealing to the down-and-outers. Dennis Miller once observed that the prison inmates always seem to find Jesus when no one else down here will talk to them anymore.
• that it is a contrasting idea to theosis (the seeds of divinity within man), a concept which I find inherently more appealing. I’d rather focus on strengths & potential than weakness and shortcomings.  I’m just a cock-eyed optimist!  I do find sadness somewhat off-putting.
• the idea of justice and mercy that is represented feels man-made and not like something that God would be bound to follow. I don’t like the legalistic metaphors often used to explain the atonement.

Here are a few of the ways the atonement has been viewed over the centuries, each with a unique insight:

• Ransom Theory.  In this metaphor from the 4^th century, Jesus liberates mankind from slavery to Satan and thus death by giving his own life as a ransom. Victory over Satan consists of swapping the life of the perfect (Jesus), for the lives of the imperfect (mankind).  A variation of this view is known as the “Christus Victor” theory, in which Jesus defeats Satan in a spiritual battle and frees the enslaved humans from their captor.  (like an action movie with hostages being rescued).  This one sounds kind of cool in a Die Hard sort of way, but it also doesn’t ring quite true for me.  A variation of this I heard on my mission was someone buying a cage full of dirty, diseased birds with lousy attitudes.  Not my favorite perspective on humanity.
• Penal Substitution.  Another metaphor, from the 11^th century, is that man is in debt to a sovereign God who has the power to forgive debt, but also has to uphold the laws. In this metaphor, only a perfect sacrifice could satisfy the demands of the transgressed laws, and Jesus, being both God and man, was this perfect sacrifice.  A slight variation of this is the Protestant “penal substitution theory,” which sees sin as the breaking of God’s moral law, and Jesus takes the punishment in the sinner’s stead.  This is probably the most common metaphor used for the atonement, but it is very legalistic and leaves me cold.  I think we let the metaphor become the thing it symbolizes in this one.  I suspect the atonement is not entirely encompassed by this view.
• Moral Influence.  A third metaphor from the 11^th century, and speaks to the power of the image of a suffering Christ who sacrifices himself out of love for man, and mankind, moved by the extent of God’s love is transformed and healed by the power of the Holy Spirit.  I appreciated this one because I think we LDS tend to look at the crucifixion images in Catholic churches as ghoulish and morbid, but this metaphor explains their appeal to millions of worshippers in a whole new light for me.
• Theosis Metaphor.  Eastern Orthodoxy views the atonement as not a legal release, but a transformation of the human nature itself in the Son taking on human nature. The Orthodox emphasis is that Christ died to change people so that they may become more like God.  This is one I find very appealing, although it’s not one I ever recall hearing at church.  It lines up nicely with our idea that we are sons & heirs of God, with the seeds of godhood within us.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we expand on these metaphors by recognizing and emphasizing some additional components to the atonement:

• Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane. Modern day revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants adds emphasis to the role of Gethsemane in the atonement process: “…how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not…. Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit…”  I like the focus in LDS theology on the sacrifice being deliberate on Jesus’ part, that he chose to do this of his own free will despite how hard it was.  I like the emphasis on free choice, not so much on the difficulty which feels like a major guilt trip (I suppose because it IS).
  • The name Gethsemane literally means oil press.  In Gethsemane, Jesus as the Son of God is pressed as the olives were.  Oil was and is used for all sorts of purposes: to perform priesthood ordinances, to anoint the body, and to heal the sick and restore them to health.  Metaphorically, Jesus is the ultimate healing and anointing oil.
  • In a talk on the Symbols of the Atonement in 1991, E. Russell Nelson said:  “Olive trees are special in the Holy Land. The olive branch is universally regarded as a symbol of peace. This tree provides food, light, heat, lumber, ointments, and medicine. It is now, as it was then, crucial to life in Israel. It is not a deciduous tree, but ever bearing—always green. Even if the tree is chopped down, life will spring from its roots, suggesting everlasting life.  Jesus came to the base of the Mount of Olives to affect the first component of the Atonement. This He did at the Garden of Gethsemane. The word Gethsemane comes from two Hebrew roots: gath, meaning “press,” and shemen, meaning “oil,” especially that of the olive.  There olives had been pressed under the weight of great stone wheels to squeeze precious oil from them. So the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane was literally pressed under the weight of the sins of the world. He sweat great drops of blood—his life’s “oil”—which issued from every pore.  Jesus was accorded titles of unique significance. One was the Messiah, which in Hebrew means “anointed.” The other was the Christ, which in the Greek language means “anointed” as well. In our day, as it was in His day, the ordinance of administration to the sick includes anointing with the consecrated oil of the olive. So the next time you witness consecrated oil being anointed on the head of one to be blessed, and these sacred words are said, “I anoint you with this consecrated oil,” remember what that original consecration cost. Remember what it meant to all who had ever lived and who ever would yet live. Remember the redemptive power of healing, soothing, and ministering to those in need. Remember, just as the body of the olive, which was pressed for the oil that gave light, so the Savior was pressed. From every pore oozed the life blood of our Redeemer. And when sore trials come upon you, remember Gethsemane.”
• Empathetic purpose. Christ did not only suffer for the sins of all men, but also to experience their physical pains, illnesses, anguish from addictions, emotional turmoil and depression, “that His bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:12; compare Isaiah 53:4).  This empathy allows Jesus to be a more effective advocate and personal friend to us.  This sounds remarkable similar to the one about the image of the suffering Christ creating empathy in humanity (the reverse of this).  But I think when you put them both together, it adds some interest to the perspective.
• The relationship between justice, mercy, agency, and God’s unconditional love. We focus on the need for free agency.  Just as Jesus had the ability to choose to lay down his life, if we are truly penitent we will voluntarily come unto him to receive his grace.  We do this through the process of repentance.  I do find this idea useful – the focus on our personal choice.

I liked the idea that there are many different ways to interpret the atonement, and some of these are more appealing to me than others. How about you?  Were any of these helpful?  How do you feel about the atonement?  Discuss.

Cliques tend to form within the boundaries of a larger group among individuals most likely to interact based on common interests.  While cliques can occur within any group, in our modern society of inclusion and participation awards, the term is often used pejoratively:

• Exclusivity.  By default cliques exclude those who don’t share those common interests or social opportunities.
• Self-reinforcing.  Cliques develop a sub-set of standards within the larger organization.  For example, a teenage clique might develop more specific dress standards (e.g. skinny jeans or black tee shirts) that are a sub-set of what is admissible in the high school they attend, but that does not include other admissible attire (e.g. chinos and polo shirts) that pertains to a different clique in the same high school.  Over time, behaviors, values, and so forth are normative within the smaller clique and will differ from the larger group as a whole.
• “Popular” or “cool” factor.  Those who aspire to inclusion in a clique that does not include them may experience envy or feel spiteful toward those in that clique.  Likewise, those within a clique may look down on those who do not share their clique’s normative values and behaviors.

Surely this doesn’t happen among adults in the church.  Or does it?

A psychometric test called the FIRO-B attempts to gauge one’s interest in being included.  It covers the following personal characteristics:

• Inclusion.  Those with high inclusion scores want to belong.  If they feel they don’t belong, they may become offended.  Ask yourself:  Do I want to be included or would I rather be left alone?
  • High Inclusion:  Am I missing out on something that everyone else is doing?  Am I in the “in” crowd?
  • Low Inclusion:  Maybe if I unplug the phone and don’t answer the door, they will go away!
• Control.  Control relates to one’s desire to direct the activities of others.  Ask yourself:  How much say do I want to have in what the group is doing?
  • High Control:  I know the best way to do this, if they would just let me do it.
  • Low Control:  Why do I always have to do everything?
• Affection.  This relates to one’s desire for warmth in relationships.  Ask yourself:  Do I want my relationships to be close and personal or to maintain distance and independence?
  • High Affection:  I just love people.  I’m a hugger.
  • Low Affection:  Don’t touch me.  Have we even been properly introduced?

The instrument measures two other aspects as well:

• Expressed behavior.  This relates to one’s own actions in relation to the social group.  Ask yourself:  How much do I take initiative to meet my needs for affection, control, and inclusion?
  • High Expressed Behavior:  I take the initiative to set the terms of my relationships.
  • Low Expressed Behavior:  I’m not likely to be the one to call you or invite you
• Wanted behavior.  This relates to how you would like others to act in relation to your needs.  Ask yourself:  How much do you want others to initiate actions to meet your needs for affection, control and inclusion?
  • High Wanted Behavior:  If I have to ask you for what I need, then that’s not much of a relationship.  You should know what I  need.
  • Low Wanted Behavior:  I don’t rely on others to get what I need.

So, cliques happen.  That much is a natural byproduct of social groups.  What cliquish behavior occurs in church?

• Extending callings based on personal friendship.  Or conversely, those called to serve together closely may form a clique that outlasts callings.
• “Lunch Bunch” or book club groups.  Focus groups in Relief Society are in essence a form of clique – a smaller group that forms within a larger group based on a common interest.
• Families with same age kids tend to group together.
• Priesthood grouping by age can foster cliques.
• Less active members or converts may find it difficult to break into established groups of people.

The church also has some clique-busters built in:

• Rotating visiting & home teaching assignments.
• Callings that rotate and mix groups of different interests, age groups, and socio-economic status into presidencies and quorums.
• A spirit of inclusion; activities are to be open access to all ward members and at no cost to participants.
• Fellowshipping for converts and ward missionary programs.

In my experience, most claims of cliquishness relate to people whose needs aren’t being met.  What do you think?  Is your ward cliquish?  What types of cliques have you observed?  How do you get past cliques?  Does this model (FIRO-B) help explain how people relate to groups?  Discuss.

I was in the MTC when it happened, so it caught me by surprise when I was released back into the general population. I was sitting in Sacrament Meeting in an uncomfortable suit and things were going according to the usual pattern: song, prayer, business, sacrament, talks, music, talk, song, prayer.

When the final “amen” was hit, I was getting ready to stand up and leave the chapel when I was stopped in my tracks by a voice that said, “Thank you for coming out to Sunday School today, our opening song will be hymn number 149, and after that Brother Johnson will give the opening prayer and we’ll start song practice.”

Where to start?

First off, I was a little puzzled to be thanked for coming out to Sunday School. Truth is, I hadn’t really come out to Sunday School, I had merely failed to leave the chapel before this new guy got up and started speaking. Secondly, is 75 minutes not long enough to be sitting in once place watching something that’s not exploding? Were there complaints that Sacrament Meeting wasn’t long enough?

Whatever the case, I was stuck in some sort of “Groundhog Day” scenario where the past hour of my life seemed to be replaying, albeit with slight alterations.

While the changes in the meetings were all done under the guise of the Sunday School organization, it was clearly a power grab by the hymnal industrial complex and their newly minted foot soldiers, the song practice ladies. After the prayer and announcements of dubious importance, the song practice lady would get up and lead the congregation in songs that even the most faithful Mormon may not have known was in the hymnal. And no matter how famous or obscure, the song practice ladies almost always favored the longer hymns.

(Note to concerned readers: the term “song practice lady” isn’t really politically correct, I know. But come on, they were always ladies. There were never any “Song Practice Guys.”)

By the early 1990s, renegade song practice ladies were even leading congregations in what could only be described as analog versions of what would now be called mash-ups.

Example: “Did you know that you can sing ‘Dear to the Heart of the Sheppard,’ a hymn you’ve never heard of to the tune of ‘School Thy Feelings,’ another hymn you’ve never heard of. Why don’t you all get out your hymnals and give it a try…”

After a while my friends and I figured out that you could sing, “If You Could Hie to Kolob” to the tune of the theme from the Beverly Hillbillies. No song practice lady ever took us up on our offer to teach the ward this during song practice.

By the late 1990s, the tyrannical reign of the song practice ladies was over and we could all go back to standing up and walking out of the chapel after the closing prayer ends, like normal people. But some remnants of that era remain.

For instance, whenever a new ward chorister is installed, that person will almost immediately start grabbing more real estate in the church program. The most blunt instrument in the takeover is “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief,” which is almost always deployed during the first week of a new chorister’s tenure. When combined with “I Believe of Christ,” and conducted at a dirge-like pace, the opening and closing hymns can easily eat up 20 minutes of a church service. Then come the directives that the ward will be singing all the verses of the longer hymns, even the loser verses that have been exiled to the small print at the bottom of the page.

Perhaps the most audacious power grab I’ve ever seen came in August of 2000. I was visiting a ward in Salt Lake City and it was time for the special musical number. There was nothing on the program, but the bishop got up and made the following announcement, “The ward chorister has asked for ‘impromptu ward choir.’” He pointed to the side of the chapel I was sitting on and said, “Everyone sitting on this side of the room, come on up and join us here on the stand.”

And that was that. I had just been conscripted into some random ward’s choir. Moments later, I was being forced so scowl my way through a song for the pleasure of a bunch of strangers. I don’t remember what hymn it was, but I’m certain it wasn’t on the topic of free agency, nor was it the perfect ironic choice, “We Are All Enlisted.”

 It is likely ward chorister tyranny will always be with us and there is little we can do about it except sit, smile, sing loudly, and thank heaven above that at least they took all of those Utah songs out of the hymnal in 1985.

So, what do you think? Do you have a tyrannical chorister in your ward? Do you think it’s important to song all 7 verses of “A Poor Wayfaring Man of Grief”? Did anyone ward ever have a song practice man? Do tell.

“When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child:  but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

What is a “puberty rite”?  In The Power of Myth, Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell discuss the importance of puberty rites.  When society does not have a ritualistic way to move young men to adulthood, those young men create their own rituals (e.g. violent street gangs, Lord of the Flies scenarios).  Those rites can be dangerous because they often run counter to the interests of society, but it is the failure of society to initiate those children into adulthood in concert with the society’s values that creates the problem.

In primal societies, there are teeth knocked out, there are scarifications, there are circumcisions, there are all kinds of things done.  So you don’t have your little baby body anymore, you’re something else entirely.  When I was a kid, we wore short trousers, you know, knee pants.  And then there was this great moment when you put on long pants.  Boys now don’t get that.  I see even five-year-olds walking around with long trousers.  When are they going to know that they’re now men and must put aside childish things? ~ Joseph Campbell

Moyers & Campbell discuss a puberty rite from the Aboriginals:

“When a boy gets to be a bit ungovernable, one fine day the men come in, and they are naked except for stripes of white bird down that they’ve stuck on their bodies using their own blood for glue.  They are swinging the bull-roarers, which are the voices of spirits, and the men arrive as spirits.

“The boy will try to take refuge with his mother, and she will pretend to try to protect him.  But the men just take him away.  A mother is no good from then on, you see.  You can’t go back to Mother, you’re in another field.

“Then the boys are taken out to the men’s sacred ground, and they’re really put through an ordeal–circumsicision, subincision, the drinking of men’s blood, and so forth.  Just as they had drunk mother’s milk as children, so now they drink men’s blood.  They’re being turned into men.  While this is going on, they are being shown enactments of mythological episodes from the great myths.  They are instructed in the mythology of the tribe.  Then, at the end of this, they are brought back to the village, and the girl whom each is to marry has already been selected.  The boy has now become a man. . .

“Now he has a man’s body.  There’s no chance of relapsing back to boyhood after a show like that.”

Priesthood ordination sounds a little tame compared to this particular ritual.  Maybe scout camp is a better analogy?  The obvious question is if that’s how a boy becomes a man, how does a girl become a woman?  Here is a contrast:

“The girl becomes a woman with her first menstruation.  It happens to her.  Nature does it to her.  And so she has undergone the transformation, and what is her initiation?  Typically it is to sit in a little hut for a certain number of days and realize what she is . . . .  She is now a woman.  And what is a woman?  A woman is the vehicle of life.  Life has overtaken her.  Woman is what it is all about–the giving of birth and the giving of nourishment.  She is identical with the earth goddess in her powers, and she has got to realize that about herself.  The boy does not have a happening of this kind, so he has to be turned into a man and voluntarily become a servant of something greater than himself.”

Clearly to our modern sensibilities, the idea that periods are the female equivalent of priesthood strikes a sour note (to say the least!).  And frankly, I never sat in a hut for a few days over it.  Perhaps I watched some reruns and ate mint chocolate chip ice cream, though.

However, one point to consider is that to become men, boys leave their primarily female-dominated sphere (the home) to join a male-dominated sphere (the world of men).  To do this, boys need to associate with men, and to join their ranks in a way that contributes to the society.  Priesthood initiation at age 12 seems to do just that.  What are your thoughts?  Discuss.

First, let’s clarify the terms:

• Nature Religions are based on the premise that nature is benevolent (even human nature) and that mankind should strive to be in harmony with nature.  These religions usually emerge when the religious community is tied to a geographic location (e.g. islanders or others who cultivate the land).  Often these religions have a female deity because the whole world is the body of the goddess.
• Social Religions are based on the idea that nature is evil and must be controlled.  The means to control nature is through “magic” (we would say Priesthood in our religious tradition).  These religions usually emerge when a religious community is nomadic (e.g. wandering in the desert for 40 years, trekking across the plains).  In these religions, God is separate from nature, and nature is condemned by God.  Often these are religions with a male deity because the female represents life and nature – the source of all life – while the male is elsewhere.

What happens when a Social Religion meets a Nature Religion?  Usually, the social religion tries to control the “pagans.”

Joseph Campbell described:  A local jungle native said to a missionary:  “Your god keeps himself shut up in a house as if he were old and infirm.  Ours is in the forest and in the fields and on the mountains when the rain comes.”

“In the Bible we are told that we are the masters.  For hunting people the animal is in many ways the superior.”  ~Joseph Campbell

“In classic Christian doctrine the material world is to be despised, and life is to be redeemed in the hereafter, in heaven, where our rewards come.”  ~Bill Moyer

“The ancient myths were designed to harmonize the mind and the body.  The mind can ramble off in strange ways and want things that the body does not want.  The myths and rites were means of putting the mind in accord with the body and the way of life in accord with the way that nature dictates.”  ~Joseph Campbell

During OT times, there were many nature cults in which you would go to a grove to commune with diety.  These groups were condemned by the Hebrews who had a temple-bound (or mountain-bound at times) god, and both groups were constantly at war.

Clearly, as a Christian religion, Mormonism has facets of a Social Religion (anti-nature):

1. The pioneer trek & Zion’s camp were examples of attempts to recreate the nomadic culture of the ancient Hebrews.  These types of cultures require subjugation of nature to ensure one’s very survival.
2. Priesthood is sometimes described as the power to control nature, even to command the mountains to move.
3. Male deity is generally associated with anti-nature, social religions.  However, the caveat to this is below.
4. Sin, the idea that man’s nature is fallen.  Again, this is a Christian concept, so not unique to Mormonism.

So, what are some evidences that Mormonism (as a restorationist movement) has components of nature religion:

1. Female deity.  Although there is little to no discussion any more of our Heavenly Mother, the fact that we acknowledged God to have an equal female partner is an interesting restored concept and adds balance to the male-dominated deity.
2. Theosis.  The idea that we are Gods in embryo capable of becoming Gods.  Certainly this ennobles our human nature.
3. Corporeal resurrection.  Although some religions have this in common, Mormonism is somewhat unique in defining the resurrected body as part of the soul (not just the spirit).  This contradicts the idea that our bodies are inherently sinful and weak.
4. Second estate.  This is the idea that gaining a body is superior to a purely spiritual existence (like Satan & co).  Again, many religions elevate the spiritual over the physical.  We do the reverse.
5. Eve’s choice.  Unlike many other Christian religions, our interpretation of the fall is that Eve made the better choice; she chose life and progeny (nature) over obeying the rules.  And if she had not, we wouldn’t be here.  However, the caveat to this is the notion that she was punished.  The question is whether her punishment was a punishment or a natural condition.

There are some other key links between Mormonism and nature religions.  Some of these links are very Mormon, others are common to Christianity:

1. Sacred groves. Sacred groves were most prominent in the Ancient Near East and prehistoric Europe, but feature in various cultures throughout the world. They were important features of the mythological landscape and cult practice of Celtic, Germanic, ancient Greek, Near Eastern, Roman, and Slavic polytheism, and were also used in India, Japan, and West Africa. Examples of sacred groves include the Greco-Roman temenos, the Norse hörgr, and the Celtic nemeton, which was largely but not exclusively associated with Druidic practice. During the time of Christianisation of Estonia by German invaders starting in 12th century there was a common practice of building churches on the sites of sacred groves.  Mormon mythical connection: Duh, when JS didn’t find God in the local churches (man-made buildings), he found Him in a grove of trees near his home.  Chalk one up for nature!
2. The “Mountain” of the Lord.  Almost all religions have some sacred mountains – either holy themselves (like Mount Olympus in Greek mythology) or related to famous events (like Mount Sinai in Judaism and descendant religions). In some cases the sacred mountain is purely mythical, like the Peak of Hara in Zoroastrianism. Volcanos were also considered as sacred mountains, such as Mount Etna in Italy, which was believed to be the home of Vulcan the Roman god of fire.  Mormon mythical connection:  The temple is referred to as the “mountain of the Lord”; when the Hebrews couldn’t build a man-made temple, they built tabernacles.  When they couldn’t build tabernacles, they went into a high mountain to commune with God.  The trek to the Rocky Mountains makes this one stand out.  Their man-made temple was destroyed in Nauvoo, so where did they head?  Once again, to the mountains.  Nature wins again!  (Of course, then they built another man-made temple, but it sure took a long time).
3. The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning.  Worship or deification of fire (also pyrodulia, pyrolatry or pyrolatria) is known from various religions. As fire has also destructive capabilities, the worshipping of fire is necessarily ambiguous. This is indicated in proverbs such as “Fire is a good servant but a bad master”.  Mormon mythical connection:  While there are some fire / God connections we share with other faiths (burning bush, Israelites following God who was a pillar of fire) in Mormonism, God is described as dwelling in everlasting burnings.  D&C 110: 3 says:  “His ^aeyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his ^bcountenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his ^cvoice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of ^dJehovah.”  Sounds like a God of fire to me.  Another one for nature!
4. And the star nearest to God is called Kolob.  Astrolatry refers to the worship of stars and other heavenly bodies as deities, or the association of deities with heavenly bodies. The most common instances of this are sun gods and moon gods in polytheistic systems worldwide. Also notable is the association of the planets with deities in Babylonian, and hence in Greco-Roman religion, viz. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.   The term astro-theology is used in the context of 18th to 19th century scholarship aiming at the discovery of the original religion, particularly primitive monotheism. In contradistinction to astrolatry, which unambiguously implies a polytheism frowned upon as idolatrous by Christian authors since Eusebius, astrotheology is any “religious system founded upon the observation of the heavens.  Mormon mythical connection:  Well, this certainly sounds like the Book of Abraham to me!

So, what do you think?  Is Mormonism a nature religion or a social religion or something in between?  Has it changed over time?  Discuss.

Mormonism today runs a balancing act between its roots of free speculation and the need to create a cohesive religious and cultural organization.  The social bond of a church is based at some vital level on common belief and understanding among people practicing their religion.  Lacking firm creeds, we conduct this balancing act on a personal level.  Problems arise when we attempt to impose our speculation on others.  Conflict occurs when we need others to validate our individual interpretations.  There is a line between personal belief and the beliefs that all Mormons must share in common.  But where is it?

There has to be official Mormon doctrine.  There has to be something common that brings people together in the religion.  Don Ashton recently published a paper on this topic at http://www.staylds.com.  It is called “What is Official Church Doctrine?”  You can find it in the “Additional Support Resources” section of the website: http://www.staylds.com/?page_id=29

Don argues that the official and binding core of ideas, the cannon of doctrine that is fixed, is actually limited and abstract.  That abstract characteristic allows following generations to interpret and develop the core to suit the needs of their contemporary environment.  The same can be done by individuals to meet personal needs in their eternal journey of progress towards divine enlightenment.

Don summarizes this nicely in his opening section:

The 14 million members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are spread across 160 countries on 6 continents. Yet there is a remarkable consistency in beliefs, attitudes, teachings and practices among Mormons everywhere. A traveler visiting congregations throughout the world will find familiar curricula materials, beliefs, and attitudes on most every religious topic.

Yet Mormonism is not dogmatic. There is no creed or statement of core beliefs which adherents are obliged to accept. Both members and leaders alike hold varying opinions ranging from whether watching TV on Sunday is sinful, to whether every statement by a General Authority must be explicitly and unconditionally obeyed.

Such questions may be insignificant or disquieting. If a person is struggling with faith issues, it may become important to distinguish between Official Doctrine and less authoritative council. A clear understanding of Official Doctrine can reduce controversy, minimize anxiety and perhaps open up new options for resolving faith issues. This essay attempts to evaluate the authoritativeness of council ranging from canonized scripture to conventional wisdom.

The practical implications of this speak to a common encounter, which is a feeling of having to believe or practice things sometimes that do not make sense to us.  The first question should then be whether the problem stems from an unbending core of fundamental doctrine; or instead, is it actually our own incorrect expectations and assumptions, someone else’s personal speculation, or something that we can freely explore.

Many ideas and practices touted as “official” are not.  They are someone’s personal speculation and interpretation of the core doctrine.  That means we are free to agree or disagree.  It does not mean that person is wrong in their religious journey.  What they do and believe may be valuable to them.  But we should feel justified and even compelled to use our free agency and God-given intelligence to build what works for us.  That is the soul inherited from our Church founding, and it is a theme to be nurtured today.  We should expect our understanding to evolve over the course of our life.  We should also expect the larger and broader concept of Restoration in the Church to continue its course of evolution from the past to today, and on into the future.

What do you think?  Discuss.

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.)

I really enjoyed studying about ritual – the ways that we use ceremony to create value and meaning – we just experienced one with our sacrament.

And I enjoyed learning about “memorates” – personal experience stories that people tell about their own encounters with the supernatural. In the church, we often call these faith-promoting stories, and that’s the way that folklorists look at them too – that these stories function to justify and validate the beliefs of the people who tell them. They create certainty in the face of uncertainty, and whether the stories themselves are true or not, this is a very valuable thing.

It was an interesting time, and I went through many shifts and changes as I looked more closely at what I believed, why I believed it, and how it fit with the beliefs of other people all over the world. It was a pretty humbling experience, to say the least. And as a result, I have developed this constant, nagging, unshakeable, internal tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. It is very much like the lyrics to a song:

When I was young, it seemed that life was so wonderful,
a miracle, oh it was beautiful, magical.
And all the birds in the trees, well they’d be singing so happily,
joyfully, playfully watching me.
But then they sent me away to teach me how to be sensible,
logical, responsible, practical.
And they showed me a world where I could be so dependable,
clinical, intellectual, cynical.

There are times when all the world’s asleep,
the questions run too deep
for such a simple man.
Won’t you please, please tell me what we’ve learned
I know it sounds absurd
but please tell me who I am.

That about sums up my graduate experience. It was kind of like worlds colliding. I had become skeptical, cynical, but I still had to exist in a believing world. What was I to do?

One thing I did was turn to the scriptures and to the counsel from general authorities and modern day prophets:
Mormon 9:27 - “Doubt not, but be believing.”  Thanks, but too late.
Bruce R. McConkie – “Doubt is an inclination to disbelieve the truths of salvation… it is a state of uncertainty… faith and belief are of God; doubt and skepticism are of the devil.”  Really? Yikes!
President Monson – “Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other. Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: ‘I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you, agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God’s word. I wasn’t with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it’.”

With these quotes, I think it is pretty clear where I ought to be when it comes to doubt and faith. But if I’m being honest, I fall far short of these ideals. I just can’t accept the premise that faith and doubt cannot co-exist in the same mind. They have to. Because they both exist in mine. And I don’t know any other way to be.

I do want to endorse President Monson’s counsel, however, that if you can dismiss doubt when it knocks on your door, from my experience, you will be much more comfortable and far less troubled — so by all means, if you can do it, do it.

But if you’re like me – if you can’t just dismiss your doubts – there must still be a way to keep those doubts from destroying the house of faith. Right? Please? Because I can’t not doubt, but I still want to hold on to my faith. So what am I to do?

Well, the simple answer is that I have had to redefine my faith to make room for my doubts and to find a value in these doubts – so I want to share with you how I have done this.

MY TOP TEN

I want to walk you through my top ten personal beliefs about faith and doubt. Disclaimer – these are just my own imperfect opinions based on my own limited experience. I could be wrong. But this is how I have found personal peace and balance in my life amidst this constant tug-of-war between the skeptic and the believer. So I share these with you because they have helped me, but I also reserve the right to change my mind at any time – it’s happened before, it can happen again.

If I really wanted to be borderline irreverent I might say that these are the philosophies of Glenn, mingled with scripture – but I don’t, so I won’t.

So here are my top ten:

1. Faith – at its most basic level – is desire.

I think this is consistent with the scriptures. Especially Alma 32. This is where Alma is preaching to the poor among the Zoramites.

You may remember that the Zoramites were condemned for their incredible pride – they would stand up on their rameumptom and show forth false humility – praising themselves for being the elect chosen of God, and condemning everyone else around them for following foolish and corrupt traditions. They cast out the poor and were very exclusive in their membership.

So Alma went among the cast out poor and taught them an allegory about faith – that it starts with desire – and that desire can be nurtured and tested and grown into a firm conviction. He compares it to a seed that is planted in fertile soil and cultivated until it grows and bears fruit and you can taste the fruit to know that the seed was, in fact, a good seed.

So faith starts with desire, but it isn’t JUST desire – you have to act upon that desire.

One of my basic desires is to be fair to people and respectful of their beliefs. And this desire has had a great influence over the mental gymnastic that you are about to see, because I also desire to hold on to my faith in spite of all of my doubts.

2. There is really no such thing as “doubt”

I guess you could say that I doubt doubt.

“Doubt” is just a word. It’s a word that we use to describe someone else’s belief that is contrary to our belief. For example, I could say, “I believe it is going to rain today.” And you could say, “No, I doubt it.” That’s really the same thing as saying, “No, I don’t believe that it will rain today.”

My point here is that “doubt” isn’t really anything but another way of saying “I don’t believe.”

3. There is really no such thing as “don’t believe”

I’m playing a game of semantics again. When you say that you “don’t believe” that it will rain, what you really mean is that you “do believe” that it will not rain. It is still an active belief.

I believe it will rain – you believe it will not rain. Your belief vs. my belief. And we may both have valid reasons for believing what we are choosing to believe.

I believe it will rain because I trust the forecast – it’s been right more than it has been wrong, and I don’t mind carrying an umbrella.

You believe it won’t rain because, despite the forecast, you just looked outside and no Japanese person in sight is carrying an umbrella, and the Japanese are never wrong about this sort of thing. Plus, you don’t want to be the only one carrying an umbrella, cuz then you’d look stupid.

So the point here is to define belief as an active thing, despite whatever words we use – whether we call it doubt or say we “don’t believe” it is all really just belief.

4. Faith and Doubt are not opposites – they are equivalents

If both faith and doubt are active beliefs, then they are really the same thing, aren’t they? They are both beliefs, just pointed in different directions.

Someone may say that faith has action but doubt has no action, but I would challenge that.

Yes, the faithful person takes an umbrella even if they are uncertain whether it will rain or not, and that is a faithful act.

But even the doubter takes action by choosing to NOT carry an umbrella and still walking outside anyway. Both are beliefs and both inspire action. Maybe this is the secret key to unlock the mystery of believing “all things” that we have been admonished to do. And then again, maybe not.

5. Faith and Doubt can co-exist

President Monson said that doubt and faith cannot exist in the same mind at the same time – and maybe I am using this quote out of context – but don’t we all doubt some things while simultaneously having faith in others?

For example, I doubt the traditional meaning behind the James 2:20 scripture mastery scripture “faith without works is dead.” I was originally taught that this was James’ response to the atonement of Christ. That we are not saved by grace alone, but must also show forth works for our eternal salvation, for faith without works is dead.

But when I went back and read all of James chapter 2, I saw that James’ message wasn’t about the atonement. It was about our own exercise of faith. It is saying that you have to put your money where your mouth is. If someone comes to you seeking food, and you say “bless you, and hunger no more” but you don’t actually give them any food, then you aren’t actually going to save them.

So I doubt the way that I was originally taught this scripture, but I still have faith that the message is a good message and that it comes from a good source. And that is a balancing act between doubt and faith.

6. Faith without doubt is dead

That is the GOT – the Glenn Ostlund Translation of James 2:20. Faith is a hope and a desire, but it is not a perfect knowledge. So there must be uncertainty, some degree of questioning or doubt, otherwise faith would be knowledge. Uncertainty in and of itself is not a bad thing in my world. And when uncertainty or doubt spurs us to positive action, it can actually be a very good thing.

7. Uncertainty is a scary thing

Without a doubt, doubt will make you more unsure about what you used to be very sure about, and this can be a scary thing. But one lesson that I learned as a kid is that anytime the scriptures say “have faith” you could interchange the phrase for “fear not” and the meaning would stay the same. So even with all of the different conflicting messages all around us in the world every day – even with all of the valid and reasonable reasons to have doubt, if we nurture our faith, we do not need to fear doubt. Doubt does not have to destroy our faith – it can bolster and lift it and lead us to new light and knowledge.

8. Our church has been built upon doubt – or at least upon the positive interaction between doubt and faith.

The First Vision would not have happened unless Joseph had experienced some questions and doubts about what he was hearing in the different revival meetings. But he also had faith that the Lord would answer his prayer. A pretty successful one-two punch, if you ask me.

And throughout the history of the church, doctrines and policies have been added or removed or amended because people have debated and doubted and questioned and reached out in faith, and received further light and knowledge. So there is a lesson to be learned here, that doubt and faith can interact together towards a good end.

9. Repentance without doubt is dead

We are constantly encouraged to evaluate and examine how we are living our lives. We are encouraged to repent when we need to repent, and I think that doubt plays a role here.

I have always found illumination in the Japanese word for repentance – kuiaratameru. If I understand it right, it literally means to remorse and to change. What causes this remorse? What leads us to a realization that we are in error? We must at some point doubt our very selves – we must doubt that our actions have been good actions. So perhaps this is another area where doubt can have a positive influence in our lives.

10. Humility is the key

Whether as individuals or as a church, regardless of what we currently believe or how strong our convictions, further light and knowledge can always reveal new truths, and our beliefs can always change.

Shouldn’t that awareness then lead to greater humility on our parts? Isn’t humility the way we learn to show Christ-like empathy and compassion and forgiveness for others, even when we disagree with them or when they disagree with us?

Isn’t that the humilty that caused the good Samaritan to stop and help the man on the side of the road, even though he probably doubted the other guys’ beliefs?

Isn’t that the compassion and empathy that caused Christ to say “forgive them father, for they know not what they do?” even as they were in the very act of doubting him to a painful and undeserved death?

Back to Alma 32 – Alma rejoiced when he saw that the poor among the Zoramites had been cast out. Why? Because they had been compelled to be humble, and that softened their hearts. No one wants to be compelled to be humble, but I think we should all have soft hearts — believers and skeptics alike. We should be open-minded, tolerant of different ideas, willing to admit our own imperfect understanding.

Doubt – for me – has compelled and pounded and softened my heart. It has lead me to a humilty in my beliefs, or at least an ability and a desire to step off of my own rameumpton and drop any pretense that I am any more elect than anyone else around me. Doubt has helped me repent of this pride.

In conclusion, I have atheist friends who are some of the most charitable, kind, Christ-like people that I know. When I ask them about God, they often say that it makes no sense to them that a loving God would put us in a no-win situation, and would punish us for living in a sinful world that God himself created.

There are many responses to this, but I want to give just one. If the story of the atonement is true – if Jesus Christ took upon himself the sins of the world and died for our sakes – then isn’t that the responsible thing for a God to do? Doesn’t that mean that he has personally erased the effects of sin and death that have come to us as a result of our following his plan and entering into this mortal probation full of death and sin? To me it is like he is saying, “don’t worry, I’ve got you covered. Have faith. Fear not. Now just go and love each other as I have loved you. “

I find great beauty and hope in this approach. And I have a firm desire for this to be true. I also have a strong faith in the principles of charity that we read about in Moroni:  “Wherefore, if a man have faith he must have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart. Otherwise, his faith and hope is vain; and he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; for charity suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things. Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him.”

This is my hope and my faith, in spite of my doubts.

How do you feel about doubt and its relationship to faith?

The story of David and Jonathan is one of the most inspiring examples of true friendship anywhere.  Our LDS SS manual firmly places this lesson within the mainstream view of Biblical exegesis, presenting the two as strong personal and platonic friends.  As I studied the covenant made between these young men in 1 Samuel 18, I was touched by the loyalty shown by the young Jonathan, because he “loved [David] as his own soul.”  Because of this love, Jonathan relinquishes his hopes for his father’s throne in deference to God’s choice.  In a symbolic and ceremonial gesture, Jonathan strips off his robe, which represents the authority he holds to succeed his father, King Saul, and gives it to David.  He also gives David his sword and his bow, representing his military prerogative; and his girdle, which symbolizes spiritual truths and the kingdom of God.

But other writers, beginning with Homer and continuing to the present day, have noted the strong elements of intimacy and eroticism within the relationship.  David’s love for Jonathan is described as “wonderful, passing the love of women.”  Saul also reprimands Jonathan at the dinner table, accusing him that “thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.”  Martti Nissinen concludes that this “choosing (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.  Some also interpret this as Saul’s caution that choosing David as a lover meant that Jonathan could not produce an heir to the throne. There is also an exchange pointing to 1 Samuel 18:21. Here Saul tells David that when he marries Michal he will become his son-in-law for the second time.  There is reason to suppose the union of Jonathan and David represents the first.

What does it mean that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David?

In trying to interpret the story of these two Biblical figures, I am greatly influenced by my reading of Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans.  In this book, Quinn describes a nineteenth-century Mormon culture far more hospitable to and tolerant of same-sex relationships than that of modern Mormonism, which he regards as “homophobic.”  He gives several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon couples he believes were homosexual.  But in doing so, he also admits of a world and an era where emotional intimacy and physical closeness of same-sex friends did NOT involve homoeroticism.  He gives examples of letters written in the nineteenth century between platonic friends which contained emotional intensity and passionate references.  Same-sex friends held hands, kissed each other on the lips, and sometimes slept in the same bed for years at a time. These things are more aptly described as “homosociality.”   Reading about this phenomenon gave me an insight into the world view of previous ages that I had not understood before reading the book.

At times when I read the story of David and Jonathan through my twenty-first-century lens, I have wondered if these men were not physically intimate.  The words and images used to describe their relationship are passionate, ardent, concupiscent.  But reading about some of the homosocial behaviors Quinn describes has convinced me that David and Jonathan were not gay.  I agree with Quinn that too many Americans find homosociality frightening. Some of my returned-missionary friends have spoken with embarrassment of the strong male bonding they experienced on their missions.  They recall vivid episodes involving platonic intimacy — walking arm-in-arm, embracing, and other emotional and physical affection.  We are suspicious and uncomfortable with these things in our modern paradigm.  But homosociality can be an enlightening concept to consider.  I’m glad this relationship is included among all of the other unusual associations described in the Old Testament!

BONUS: The woodcut of Jonathan and David pictured below may be astonishingly evocative, both to LDS members endowed before 1990 and to those familiar with Masonic ritual.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/17/homosociality-and-the-friendship-between-david-and-jonathan/feed/ 22 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/15/equal-parenting-feasible-or-not/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/15/equal-parenting-feasible-or-not/#comments Tue, 15 Jun 2010 10:46:03 +0000 Hawkgrrrl http://mormonmatters.org/?p=11636 There was an interesting article in NYT about the parenting equality in Sweden.  Sweden’s practices are probably the most advanced in terms of creating parental equality, although they go a little too far for my tastes.  As a business person things like 120 paid days of sick time per year for child care seem a little tough to work around.  Nevertheless, the article highlighted some of the obstacles to creating true equality in parenting.

The obstacles I see preventing couples from truly being equal partners with equal opportunity for career fulfillment and a successful family:

1. Familiarity.  People who resist change in general, who prefer the comfort of familiarity and traditions, are going to have a hard time creating an equal distribution of parenting responsibility.  From the article:  “Society is a mirror of the family.  The only way to achieve equality in society is to achieve equality in the home.”  Mormon implications:  Generally speaking, people who are active in religions tend to be traditionalists.
2. Society’s and employer’s support.  There are many financial disincentives for parents to shoulder responsibilities equally.  “A mother’s future earnings increase on average 7 percent for every month the father takes leave.”  That’s from Sweden’s findings.  Of course, if you use the term “paternity leave” in the U.S., most people will laugh their heads off.  For real societal change to happen, those who have the most to lose (in this case, men) have to willingly give up their privileges.  Mormon implications:  The church does actively support more co-parenting, IMO, although traditional norms prevail, and among the older generation, sexism even prevails.  But on the whole, the Mormon men I know seem more experienced with things like diapering, cooking, making family-oriented decisions and pitching in around the home.
3. Logistics of co-parenting.  “Among those with university degrees, a growing number of couples split the leave evenly; some switch back and forth every few months to avoid one parent assuming a dominant role — or being away from jobs too long.”  It’s natural for one parent to dominate the way the house is run.  Mormon implications:  Perhaps due to gender encouragement (e.g. PoF), IMO Mormons usually have female-dominated homes, even moreso than society at large (which also tends to be domestically female-dominated).
4. Inherent differences betweeen the SAHP and career parents.  “The higher women rank, the more they resemble men: few male chief executives take parental leave — but neither do the few female chief executives.”   Career ambition and family responsibilities simply conflict.  Over time, one will win.  My DH has said (and I think he’s right), that in a family you can only really have 2 of these 3 things: well-raised kids, mother with good career, father with good career.  And two is best case.  You could clearly lack all three or only have one of the three.  Mormon implications:  There are more women in the church who choose to be a SAHM than outside the church.  This, to me, is the real “gender difference.”  Families with shared SAHParenting or where both parents have careers have more gender sameness.  Where both parents are SAHPs, they seem more traditionally female, and where both parents have careers, the characteristics of the parenting style may be more male.
5. The emotional pull of staying home.  “the most commonly cited reason for not taking more paternity leave, after finances, was mother’s preference.”  Many women find intense satisfaction from parenting.  Stay at home dads (in the article) in fact find the same thing.  Once they have a taste for staying home, they long for it as much as their wives.  Part of this issue is probably also (not cited in article though) that women want to set the standards within the home (see next comment).  Mormon implications:  Well, I don’t think there are many Mormon SAHDs, although there are some.  But I do think Mormon dads understand the pull of home more than those who are less family focused.
6. Women’s standards for the home vs. men’s.  “How many dads cut their children’s nails?  I know she’s going to do it and so I don’t bother. We have to overcome that if we truly want to share responsibility.”  This goes to the heart of different standards. Women feel that their children’s and home’s appearance is a reflection on them, that society holds them accountable for these, but even SAHDs don’t have that sense of being scrutinized.  Mormon implications:  There are many GC talks about this.  And personally, I think the key is for men to up their game a little bit, and for women to lower their standards a little bit.  We have to meet in the middle on this one.  And while both parents should take pride in their family and home, neither should feel so pressured by outside perceptions that they can’t simply enjoy their family.
7. Societal rewards.  ”I get complimented on how much I help at home, Cecilia gets no such gratitude.”  When men “parent” they seem to get extra points for being a human being. Women, OTOH, are often judged harshly (or judge themselves harshly) if their home or children don’t meet high standards.  Mormon implications:   Women should not judge other women for choices that differ from their own.  And the one thing that gets my goat is when a man refers to “babysitting” his own kids.  You are not babysitting.  You are parenting.
8. Gender sameness.  “Some, however, worry that as men and women both work and both stay home with kids, a gender identity crisis looms. “Manhood is being squeezed” by the sameness.”  I have to admit that emasculated men don’t sound that attractive to me. I’d (on the whole) rather have a man who is a SAHD do the job in a male way than a female way or to female standards. And I’m not keen on a man wearing a fake breast to pretend he is breast-feeding. Parenting is already desexualizing enough.  Mormon implications:  Personally I think Mormon men are divided:  those who view their roles in a mostly traditional light (feeling high responsibility for providing financially, but low for sharing domestic responsibility) and those with an equal parenting viewpoint (pragmatically pitching in to do whatever is needed and supportive of untraditional choices their wife makes).  In my experience, the younger generation fit the second category more, and anyone whose wife has a career also tends to fit into that category.  I suppose the key is that each couple needs to make it work for them.  But the pitfalls of the first scenario are worth mentioning:  female reliance on a man when factors may be unpredictable (recession, mid-life crisis / infidelity, death or disablement of the working spouse).  The key IMO is for women to retain options (education, skills, experience, etc.) to be fully self-reliant in the event it is needed.

So, what do you think about equal parenting?  Is it feasible?  Is it desirable?  What should equality in parenting look like?  Are Mormons more or less equal than non-Mormons in your opinion?  Discuss.

To me, the answer as attributed to Paul in Corinthians is crystal clear and easy advice:

1 Corinthians 7 : 12-16

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.
16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

If you accept Paul’s writings as doctrinally binding, this means you can allow an unbeliever who wants to leave to go, but you should stay with your spouse otherwise.  Paul’s counsel reminds me of E. Bednar’s personal life growing up in a house with a non-LDS father and going to church with just his mother.  Eventually, after E. Bednar was an adult, his father did choose to join the church.  I think most confusion regarding mixed belief marriages is related to this scripture in 2 Cor 6:14:

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

But this second one seems to be about whom you choose to marry or associate with, while the first one is about someone who is already married.

According to Paul’s advice, divorce of an unbeliever is only justified if that unbelieving spouse desires to leave.  Yet we hear time and again of believing spouses who consider loss of testimony a valid reason for divorce.  Why?  Here are some reasons that have been discussed around the b’nacle:

• Change.  It’s normal for spouses to fantasize about divorce when there has been a material change to the “marriage contract” as they viewed it.  For example, John McCain reevaluated his marital contract when his wife became disabled and he ditched her for the leggy blond heiress.  The fantasy may be normal and common, but actually carrying through on it is a bit unsavory.  All marriages will experience change.  Spouses will grow old, develop independent interests, get fat or skinny, change political views, have changes to sexual interest, etc.  While studies show that living in a bad marriage is detrimental to health, the negative health effects of divorce are devastating and lasting.  Being resilient and flexible enough to make marriage work through change maintains your health, both mentally and physically.
• Control.  If either spouse attempts to control the other spouse’s behavior, the marriage is on rocky ground.  Control may not degenerate to abuse, but it is in the same family of behaviors.  Marriage based on respect and mutual love does not involve controlling the choices our spouse makes.  We may wish they would choose something different, but coercing or manipulating or threatening to get what we want is another fantasy best left unindulged.  In marriages where the wife exhibits controlling behavior, husbands have a marked negative health impact that often results in an earlier death.  Maybe that’s something the controlling wife considers a benefit of her behavior.
• Opportunism.  This is one that few people will openly own, but it often sounds something like “I deserve better” or “My patriarchal blessing promised me . . . ” or “Heavenly Father wants me to have . . .” or even “My kids deserve a father who . . .”  Often what is behind those statements are two sentiments:  1) entitlement (last I checked we are still only entitled to taxes and death in this life), and 2) viewing the spouse as an obstacle to “what I want” or “what I deserve.”  Often, the believing spouse in this scenario feels entitled to a spouse who will allow him or her to maintain status in the church.  It can also be based on a fear of loss of exaltation or salvation (meaning status in the life to come).  This is the opposite of charitable love and honoring our marital vows; it is putting self ahead of the marriage.  Some will also talk of the entitlement in terms of their children (e.g. “the children deserve a mother or father who . . .”), but again, it’s not giving the children a very good example of how marriage works or of Christ-like behavior.
• Fear.  Behind a lot of failed marriages lies raw fear.  Fear of change, fear of loss of control in your life, fear of loss of status, fear of eternal consequences that are unclear in one’s changes circumstances.  Fear is something that must be faced with courage and love.  This can take time.

There is obviously justification for leaving a marriage that is abusive.  No one should be in fear of physical harm or be subject to ongoing verbal abuse, but even in cases of abuse, individuals have different definitions of what is abusive, when does disagreement become verbal abuse, etc.  Clearly, anyone can choose to leave a marriage for any reason at any time.  Marriage is voluntary.  But that doesn’t make one’s choice justifiable or healthy for personal growth.  Those who divorce are prone to make the same mistakes in future relationships (consider Emma Smith whose second husband Louis Bidamon was unfaithful).

What do you think of Paul’s counsel?  Is divorce of an unbelieving spouse who is faithful to marriage vows, loving, a good parent, and not controlling or abusive ever morally justified?  Discuss.

Immigration, and especially the porous border between Arizona and Mexico, is a current issue that seems to divide Mormons’ loyalties:

• Personally.  Many church members are very pro-Latino due to the large population of Hispanic members, the perceived shared family values, and the fact that so many members have served missions to Hispanic countries.
• Politically.  Church members in the U.S. are more predominantly Republican than Democrat (although neither party is directly endorsed by the Church); the political rhetoric of the right-wing lately has swung hard in the direction of anti-immigration (especially illegal immigration) and toward securing the U.S. borders as a measure of national security.

As the article states:

Pearce has repeatedly said his efforts to drive illegal immigrants out of Arizona and keep them from coming here is based on the Mormon Church’s 13 Articles of Faith, which includes obeying the law.

Nora Castañeda, 46, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Hermosillo, Mexico, who has been a member of the LDS Church for 35 years, said several colleagues confronted her after the law passed. . . She does not believe, however, that Pearce’s anti-illegal-immigrant stance is in line with the Mormon faith, which, in addition to teaching obedience to the law, teaches compassion.

The article points out that the church has no official stance on immigration policies which are clearly the province of governments:

Kim Farah, a spokeswoman for the LDS headquarters in Salt Lake City, said in an e-mail that elected officials who are Mormons do not represent the position of the church. She said the church has also not taken a position on immigration, which is “clearly the province of government.”

“However, Church leaders have urged compassion and careful reflection when addressing immigration issues affecting millions of people,” she said in the e-mail.

So, what do you think about the illegal immigration law and its reflection on the church?  I’m a bit torn on the issue.  Here are my reactions:

• Generally speaking, I’m against things that are illegal, including illegal immigration.
• I’m strongly against allowing terrorists into the country through unsecured borders, although this seems to be a more likely threat via airports than people trekking across an inhospitable desert.  But there is a risk that should be addressed.  However, ejecting non-terrorists doesn’t really further that aim.
• There are many human rights issues because of illegal immigration, including dangerous human trafficking and the conditions that illegal immigrants endure.
• Given that, and the inhospitable terrain that illegal immigrants must traverse to get into the U.S., only the most dire of circumstances and personal danger could drive someone to take such a desperate action.   It’s easy to be concerned about the human rights issues in our own country, but to overlook what those desperate individuals are fleeing in search of a better situation.  My compassion is moved.
• Generally speaking, I am pro-immigration.  Unless you’re a Native American, it’s a little hypocritical not to be pro-immigration.  Immigrants come here full of ideals and dreams and they work their way through the American dream just like our own forebears.  They willingly do some of the toughest work, stuff that even laid off Wall Streeters and desk jockeys are unwilling to do.
• I am decidedly pro-Latino!  Latino cultures are family-oriented, loyal, hard-working, and manage to have a lot of fun, too.  They have proud traditions just like everyone else, and they have a lot to offer the world.  Having served a mission in Spain, I have a lot of love and respect for Hispanic culture.

My own solution to the problem is simple:  the U.S. should buy Mexico.  It’s a win-win!  But since that’s not exactly on the table, I suppose I would like to see us come up with a way to secure the borders, a more open legal immigration policy, a pathway to citizenship for those who entered the country illegally, and diplomatic means to assist in improving the circumstances for those living in Mexico.

As a member of the church, though, the article brought up some additional questions:

• Is the church accountable for the actions of members who are elected officials?  I think not, although see my answer to the next question for a caveat.
• Should elected officials who are members be given carte blanche to associate their actions with Mormonism?  For one thing, how would that ever benefit anyone who lived anywhere but Idaho, Utah, and Arizona (possibly SoCal)?  Again, I say no.  Some correction in this case seems warranted based on Pearce’s political position.  It simply doesn’t seem right to me to pin his political choices on the LDS Articles of Faith.  After all, the AoF says “we believe in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.”  It doesn’t tack on “and in creating additional laws to punish and deport anyone who has not jumped through our nearly impossible immigration hoops.”
• Is this grounds for someone to leave the church in protest?  Here I have to say I don’t really think so.  The church has not endorsed this position officially; it’s a political matter.  But I would say that if local members are behaving in ways that make it difficult for a specific group of people to attend, it’s understandable (yet unfortunate) that they would leave.
• What does the church do about members who have illegally immigrated?  This one’s a bit of a minefield, and my guess is that we have no official stance.  Personally, I would be hesitant to link one’s illegal status to matters like TR interviews (e.g. “honest in all your dealings”) when desperation or a desire to protect your family has caused you to flee your dangerous home situation for a better life.  I would, in a cowardly manner, propose a “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy for these situations.  Let the heads of cabbage and rotten tomatoes fly!

What do you think?  Discuss!

(Mormon May Day was an international response to recent statements by latter-day McCarthyist Glenn Beck that social justice was a code word for communism; and that anyone involved in a church that preached such a deceptive perversion of the Gospel should leave their congregation and find a new place to worship. Participants in Mormon May Day held teach-ins and discussions around the topic of Social Justice and the Gospel on May 1, participated in a fast, and then bore testimony on May 2 in wards around the country.)

Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion! Wo be unto him that crieth: all is Well! (2 Nephi 28:24-25)

The reactions to Mormon May Day were overwhelmingly positive. People came out of the wood work to tell us how much they appreciated our efforts to assert a place in Mormon culture for liberals and radicals. Many people told me that had they known that there were people like us in the church they may not have left. While it became crystal clear to me that our work is sorely needed in the church, some members reacted with sincere curiosity. They had never noticed politics in church, and indeed many consider themselves ‘apolitical’. With these brothers and sisters in mind, the purpose of this post is to better articulate a deep frustration that many liberal and radical Mormons feel when they attend church. That frustration boils down to the fact that moral issues of the political right are constructed as moral absolutes, while the moral issues of the political left are either dismissed as misguided or minimized to the agency of an individual’s personal spirituality. This usually means they don’t get much air time in general conference, Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society. This leaves us with a problem: many Mormons feel that their interpretations of the Gospel are not valid because they do not fall within the contemporary orbit of conservative morality.

Here is what I mean.

Homosexuality and Protecting the Family

In the 2008 debate over gay marriage in California, the LDS church actively campaigned all over the state to defeat a California Supreme court ruling that legalized gay marriage. For many of us from California who sympathize with gay rights, we were horrified as testimony meetings and Sunday school lessons were filled to the brim with election slogans about protecting the family. The family, the rhetoric goes, is under attack from those who would expand the definition of marriage and it is our sacred duty to defeat this most recent affront. Using the civil rights struggles of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters as a measure of the strength of families is an excellent example of how a seemingly politically neutral and core aspect of the Gospel such as the family is framed in the moral language of the political right.

Now, this is not a polemical retort against the erosion of family values. I too believe that the family is being weakened, but my worldview causes me to look for the cause in a very different place than those on the political right. It seems to me that if we want to talk seriously about protecting the family as the basic institution of society, then perhaps we should start with the historical impact that free market capitalism has had on the family over the past 200 years. The massive upheavals that occurred in Europe and America—which are being repeated all over the globe through the globalization of production—are a result of the need for a landless and mobile labor force. It is easy for former CEOs and bootstrap entrepreneurs to wax moral about spending more time with our families while their workers scrape by on 60 hours a week. In this sense France is a more family friendly country than ours! Their workers fought for and won generous vacations with pay, universal healthcare, childcare, a 35 work week and living wages. If we are serious about protecting the family why not address issues that allow families to be together more rather than scapegoat the gay community.

Socialism

Glenn Beck follows a long line of Mormon cold warriors. But depending on who you talk to, Mormon radicals may agree with the sentiment that we need to limit the government’s role in our lives. Indeed, many of us at the Mormon Worker would like to eliminate it completely in favor of United Order style communes in every watershed.

While there is a spectrum of opinions on the Mormon left with respect to the proper role of the federal government, many of use see the words of 5 time socialist presidential candidate Eugene Debs as representing the true spirit of socialism; not as an absolutist political ideology but as a powerful call to live as Christ taught. While being tried for sedition, Debs, in response to his charges defiantly said:

“I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man who does absolutely nothing that is useful to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence. Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind then that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; and while there is a criminal element, I am of it; and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free” (Sept. 18^th 1918).

Deb’s stirring words are unmistakably inspired by the Sermon on the Mount, and when some of us proclaim sympathy with socialism, that is what we mean. None of us are suggesting that the Gospel is socialist, but there are certainly legitimate overlaps in the call for a classless society and an end to exploitation and Christ’s message of equality and love. Rather than mythologizing the cold war in pre-mortal rhetoric about free agency which implies God’s divine sanction of capitalism, perhaps we should take the words of Catholic Worker founder, Peter Maurin more seriously:

“Christianity has nothing to do

with either modern capitalism

or modern Communism,

for Christianity has

a capitalism of its own

and a communism of its own.

Modern capitalism

is based on property without responsibility,

while Christian capitalism is based on property with responsibility.

Modern communism

is based on poverty through force

while Christian communism

is based on poverty through choice.

For a Christian,

voluntary poverty is the ideal

as exemplified by St. Francis of Assisi,

while private property

is not an absolute right, but a gift

which as such can not be wasted,

but must be administered

for the benefit of God’s children.”

Ecology

We learn in D & C 58:16-20 that the good things of the earth are made to “please the eye, gladden the heart” in addition to the more utilitarian “food and raiment”; and despite being granted full access to the abundance of the earth, we are not to use it “to excess, neither by extortion.” It is significant to me that Joseph Smith’s vision took place in a forest which to us is now a Sacred Grove. What an inspiring refutation of the colonial Christian ambivalence toward nature and the “dark woods” to begin the last dispensation in a grove of trees; a stark rebuke to the Western world when that grove was filled with light on that morning in 1820. Soon thereafter nature would be reenchanted by the transcendentalist, wilderness and environmental movements.

For these reasons, it seems clear that the environmental crisis is a moral crisis; perhaps the most serious our civilization has ever faced. It will not be solved through legislation or adjustments to our consumption habits. So, when I attend church and don’t hear it addressed with unequivocal condemnation I feel confused. Isn’t our duty to care for the earth and each other as important as protecting the family, paying tithing, reading the scriptures, avoiding rated-R movies, family prayer, etc.? While policy prescriptions may be bitterly partisan, the fact remains that our stewardship over the earth’s bounty is a moral responsibility one that deserves the full attention of moral language.

War

Another area where liberal and radical members feel silenced and marginalized is around war and violence. Many church leaders grew up during an era of honorable war; of self-sacrifice for a national cause. However, many in the rising generation feel much more skeptical of leaders who proclaim just war. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan simply do not fit the narrative of an honorable war in defense of freedom. For many of us they were geopolitical maneuvering that had more to do with oil than bringing freedom to the downtrodden. Many of us were not only critical of the war, but participated in protests and other actions against the war. These actions were carried out not in spite of our religious conviction but because of them and are driven by the admonition in D&C 98:16 to “renounce war and proclaim peace.”

The invasion of Iraq especially, mirrors the kind of preemptive and unrighteous war that is harshly condemned in the Book of Mormon. For many of us, being a pacifist, or nearly so, is a core moral issue and to hear members of the church denounce those who would oppose the war as unpatriotic or worse bad Mormons is disconcerting. Let us be consistently pro-life; valuing not just the lives of unborn children, but also the lives of Iraqi men, women and children caught in the middle of an unjust and illegal occupation.

Healthcare

In Mosiah 4 we read that all the prayer and pious action in world mean nothing if we do not have charity and act upon it. One item on an oft repeated list of charitable to-do’s is “visiting the sick and administering to their relief.” We live in a country where over 40 million people do not have health insurance. Regardless of who you believe should administer healthcare, this is a massive failure on our part to live up to this Gospel commandment. Why, when we read that scripture do we not see the faces of those who cannot afford healthcare? We have allowed the polarizing rhetoric of big vs. small government obscure our duty to the sick.

God’s Politics

Christianity is supposed to transcend party politics, but that does not mean the Gospel is apolitical. Christ did not join Judas and the Zealots or the Essenes in the desert, but he adamantly critiqued the Sadducees and Pharisees for their blatant hypocrisy and priest craft. And while communism may very well have been Satan’s counterfeit, his real genius may have been setting it up as a straw man so that capitalism could slip in the back door. The Gospel is a worldview, not a hobby and I reject any neat delineation of my life as a citizen and my life as a Latter-day Saint. By decontextualizing the scriptures and church history and de-politicizing religious-right moral issues, contemporary Latter-day Saints have (whether they intended to or not) marginalized those who would interpret the Gospel through a distinct political worldview. To argue that the way the Gospel in talked about in church is apolitical or neutral is naïve and disingenuous at best.

Now, let me be clear, I am not calling for an extension of the cultural divide between American liberals and conservatives into the church; as should be clear I am opposed to using the Gospel to justify any political ideology. But as reverend Jim Wallis points out in his amazing book God’s Politics, the separation of church and state, does not mean the separation of our faith from our public life. As Wallis points out, there needs to be a coming together of moral issues on the left and right framed in religious language. This kind of politics, God’s Politics, “would not be an endless argument between personal and social responsibility, but a weaving of the two together in search of the common good” (76). While, it has been my purpose to expose the political bias of some seemingly apolitical aspects of Mormon culture, I am in agreement with Wallis that the Gospel is not republican or democrat, but a call to radical charity that includes both individual ethics and social justice.

Mormon May Day was meant to bring attention to a problem within Mormon culture. It was not about confrontation or criticism of Church leaders. When liberal and radical Mormons leave the Church we all loose a unique and valid perspective on the Gospel. I am pleading with Mormon culture to recognize many of the above issues as equally important to our salvation. I am also calling on liberal and radical Mormons to step out of their comfort zones and begin to open our mouths in church settings on topics that we feel passionately about and which are central to Christ’s message.

Church History Principles

1. Continuing exploration of our history is part of identity formation. As a church we seek always to clarify our identity, message, and mission. In our faith story, we see clearly God’s Spirit giving this faith community (not a word we use in the LDS church) tools, insights, and experiences for divine purposes. A people with a shared memory of their past, and an informed understanding of its meaning, are better prepared to chart their way into the future.  (It feels like this is a little too intellectual for us, although I don’t see anything that is directly contradictory to our views.  I think it also implies a consensus-based faith tradition that differs from our authority-based tradition.  In the LDS side of the house, we take our divine instructions pretty literally, and as individuals, we don’t get a vote.)
2. History informs but does not dictate our faith and beliefs. The foundation and continuing source for our faith is God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Studying history is not about proving or disproving mystical, spiritual, or revelatory experiences that birth or transform religious movements. (Is this a swipe at the LDS church’s truth claims?) Sound history informs faith (whereas inaccurate history misleads faith in either direction), and healthy faith leads to insights about history (ergo, unhealthy faith leads to misconceptions about history). Theology (too big a word for us – half our membership just tuned out) and faith, guided by the Holy Spirit, must play an important role in discovering the enduring meaning of such events as well as the deeper truths found in them (implying:  not just superficial truths based on an inaccurate understanding of history). Our understanding of our history affects our faith and beliefs. However, our past does not limit our faith and beliefs to what they were historically.  (This last statement holds more true to the CoC than it may to the LDS church.  The LDS church is more reliant on truth claims that are rooted in history.)
3. The church encourages honest, responsible historical scholarship. Studying history involves related fields. Historians use academic research to get as many facts as they can; then, they interpret those facts to construct as clear a picture as possible of what was going on in the past. This includes analyzing human culture to see how it affected events. Historians try to understand patterns of meaning to interpret what the past means for our future. This process should avoid “presentism,” or interpreting the past based on a current worldview and culture instead of the culture of the time.  (This bias of interpreting the past based on current worldview is at heart of a lot of negative views of history and is a worthwhile caution).
4. The study of church history is a continuing journey. If we say that a book on history is the only true telling of the story, we risk “canonizing” one version, a tendency we have shown in the past. This blocks further insights from continuing research. Good historical inquiry understands that conclusions are open to correction as new understanding and information comes from ongoing study.  (This is an excellent point that the LDS church could easily adopt).
5. Seeing both the faithfulness and human flaws in our history makes it more believable and realistic, not less. Our history has stories of great faith and courage that inspire us. Our history also includes human leaders who said and did things that can be shocking to us from our current perspective and culture. Historians try not to judge—instead, they try to understand by learning as much as possible about the context and the meaning of those words and actions at the time. The result is empathy instead of judgment. Our scriptures are consistent in pointing out that God, through grace, uses imperfect people for needed ministry and leadership.  (I love this one, and find it very useful.  However, I think this points to a generation gap that has been discussed elsewhere by the handsome Carter Hall.  There is a bias among the older generations to view flawed heroes as insufficiently heroic.  Baby boomers and onward tend to prefer flawed heroes.  Promoting “perfect” heroes results in disillusionment for these later generations, IMO).
6. The responsible study of church history involves learning, repentance, and transformation. A church with a mission focused on promoting communities of reconciliation, justice, and peace should be self-critical and honest about its history (of course, these are not the focus of the LDS church.  Instead our verbs are “perfecting, redeeming, proclaiming, and caring” – very action oriented verbs.  Hmmm.  Not a religion of reflection). It is important for us to confess when we have been less than what the gospel of Jesus Christ calls us to be. This honesty prompts us to repent, and it strengthens our integrity. (Again, this is an interesting perspective.  It takes the faults of the organization and personalizes them.  In the LDS church, the tendency is to view sin or flaws as personal failings, not organizational.  We do not internalize the flaws of the organization or personify the organization as something capable of repentance.)  Admitting past mistakes helps us avoid repeating them and frees us from the influences of past injustices and violence in our history. We must be humble and willing to repent, individually and as a community, to contribute as fully as possible to restoring God’s shalom on earth.  (I don’t think this part translates well for us.  This emphasis on communal responsibility and repentance is a bit foreign to the LDS church.  I suppose that’s a byproduct of CoC being more of a consensus / communal authority rather than authoritative/oligarchical.)
7. The church has a long-standing tradition that it does not legislate or mandate positions on matters of church history. Historians should be free to draw their own conclusions after thorough consideration of evidence. Through careful study and the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the church is learning how to accept and responsibly interpret all of its history. This includes putting new information and changing understandings into proper perspective, while emphasizing the parts of our history that continue to play a role in guiding the church’s identity and mission today.  (This one is interesting.  For one, the LDS church doesn’t really take a direct stand on historical matters.  Richard Bushman and Truman Madsen can write two very different books on the same topic, and the church does not officially endorse either.  Yet we do emphasize lessons that are based on history but only presented with the intention to edify and increase commitment.  If the history is damaging, we do not discuss it in our lessons because it would be counter-productive.  Whatever does not promote the mission of the church is correlated away).
8. We need to create a respectful culture of dialogue about matters of history. We should not limit our faith story to one perspective. Diverse viewpoints bring richness to our understanding of God’s movement in our sacred story. Of course, historians will come to different conclusions as they study. Therefore, it is important for us to create and maintain a respectful culture that allows different points of view on history. Our conversation about history should be polite and focused on trying to understand others’ views. (I do think this is an area where the LDS church could improve.  We tend to be extremely defensive when confronted with any negative interpretations of our history.  I think we could do better at being polite and focused on understanding while maintaining our own more faithful interpretation of events.  But to do that, the faithful interpretation of events needs to pass muster, which it frequently fails to do.)  Most important, we should remain focused on what matters most for the message and mission of the church in this time.
9. Our faith is grounded in God’s revelation in Jesus Christ and the continuing guidance of the Holy Spirit. We must keep our hearts and minds centered on God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. As God’s Word alive in human history, Jesus Christ was and is the foundation of our faith and the focus of the church’s mission and message.  (A great wrap up statement for both churches, IMO).

Are these principles that the LDS church should likewise espouse or are they problematic in their own right?  Would the LDS church have difficulty with some of these principles if put into practice?  Is there a better approach?  IMO, the CoC approach has some good elements we could adopt, but does not directly translate into LDS culture on the following points:

• Community vs. authority.  The LDS church doesn’t take doctrines to referendum.  Decisions are made in consensus at the Q15 level, based on prayerful consideration.  If the Q15 don’t agree, status quo prevails.  By contrast, the CoC is more egalitarian in its decision-making, making decisions “by common consent.”
• Responsibility for the past.  Because the LDS church is more of a top-down organizational church and less of a “faith community” (as evidenced by the fact that the term “faith community” sounds like some sort of PC term for a free-love hippie commune to my LDS ears) there is no group ownership for mistakes of past individuals, even generally among the leadership, but certainly not among the membership.  Passages that reflect this POV don’t resonate for that reason.
• Directness.  The LDS church definitely doesn’t favor this kind of direct approach that ties our hands.  While the CoC talks and writes about openness and change, creating collateral materials that can be reviewed time and again, the LDS church prefers to minimize collateral.  Even the collateral that exists (lds.org, Gen Conf talks, etc.) is often subtly contradictory and written from contrasting viewpoints that enable multiple interpretations, creating a patheon of doctrine.  If you search “Church History” on lds.org (go ahead, I’ll wait), there’s really not much there at all.
• Intellectual approach.  There are church leaders who favor an intellectual approach and who would find these principles appealing; yet, the style of these principles and the ideology seems like it might be inaccessible or off-putting to many lay members of the much larger LDS church.

Here are some principles or talking points that I would suggest for the LDS church (written as if I had to draft it for the church, which I don’t, thank goodness!  Because it was actually really hard to come up with these):

• All history is biased.  Historical elements in scripture are also biased by authors, cultural markers, and limited understanding.  Church history is similarly biased.  Understanding history requires a respect for the inherent biases in what we are reading, whether those biases are in favor of or against the church or an individual.  And our understanding of history is biased by our personal experiences, our views, and time in which we live.
• Understanding history can provide insight.  We can better understand patterns that influenced behavior and that tend to repeat over time within a culture.  We can empathize with our predecessors; our hearts are turned to our fathers and mothers in reviewing their experiences.  We are given countless examples that illuminate our own path, either as cautionary tales or as role models and most often as both.
• Church history is still being written.  Although divine instruction is timeless, our ability to understand it can shift over time and the relevance of different instructions can change as circumstances change.  We should be mindful of the temporal biases inherent in our human understanding as we strive to follow God’s will and comprehend our common history.
• Personal experience leads to faith.  We encourage church members to follow the spirit and to prayerfully seek instruction from Heavenly Father.  This type of humble truth-seeking can help us avoid errors in discernment and criticism of others that can lead to self-justification and sin.
• Our aim is to lead people to Christ.  While history can inform us and provide insight, ultimately it is through seeking a personal relationship with Christ and following His teachings that we grow spiritually and achieve our potential as sons and daughters of God.

What do you think the church should say regarding thorny historical issues?  Anything?  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!

From the Op-Ed (you can mentally replace some of the Catholic references with “Mormon” if that helps):

there seem to be two Catholic Churches, the old boys’ club of the Vatican and the grass-roots network of humble priests, nuns and laity in places like Sudan. The Vatican certainly supports many charitable efforts, and some bishops and cardinals are exemplary, but overwhelmingly it’s at the grass roots that I find the great soul of the Catholic Church

It’s because of brave souls like these that I honor the Catholic Church. I understand why many Americans disdain a church whose leaders are linked to cover-ups and antediluvian stances on women, gays and condoms — but the Catholic Church is far larger than the Vatican.

And unless we’re willing to endure beatings alongside Father Michael, unless we’re willing to stand up to warlords with Sister Cathy, we have no right to disparage them or their true church.

Personally, I find the highs are often higher in Catholicism because of the nature of “vocation”; nuns and priests literally give their whole life to God in a way that Mormons, who consider family life central to God’s plan, simply don’t.  But the lows are also lower, due to a few things Catholicism doesn’t share with Mormonism:  an almost two-thousand year history (and its accompanying baggage), the unhealthy sexual repression of a celibate clergy, an extremely strong anti-birth control stance (that many of its adherents ignore), and the belief in Papal infallibility (a notion that some Mormons like to flirt with).

So, what do you think?  Is the church its organization and leadership or is it the people, its adherents?  Do people get lost in the criticism of the organization and forget the good done by individuals?  Discuss.

Because of her family’s hospitality toward searching and studying, Sister Kimball says, “I’ve always had an inquiring mind. I’m not satisfied just to accept things. I like to follow through and study things out. I learned early to put aside those gospel questions that I couldn’t answer. I had a shelf of things I didn’t understand, but as I’ve grown older and studied and prayed and thought about each problem, one by one I’ve been able to better understand them.”

• polygamy
• priesthood ban
• historical issues / MMM / Joseph Smith / BOM historicity / BOA / restoration detail discrepancies

• experiences they’ve had as a detective since that case have given them new perspective
• new evidence has emerged.  For example, DNA evidence and fingerprint evidence (and other forensic sciences) have changed substantially over the last decade, casting new light on old crimes.
• similarities to subsequent crimes can change the overall understanding of the case
• evidence relating to witnesses or suspects or even victims can emerge or change over time

So, this analogy works better for me, but also puts these issues in the realm of “hobby” in my mind.  These are issues that are a curiosity, something fun to explore, and while they are personally important to the individual, they may or may not be “solvable” or “conclusive” cases.  We just have to make a decision based on the evidence we have, or move on and revisit them later.  Once you’ve made a decision on a case, right or wrong, you tend to move on past it and work on another issue.

Does the “cold case” analogy work for you?  What are your cold cases?  Are there cold cases you’ve ultimately solved to your satisfaction or do you hang onto them and mull them over again every so often?  Discuss.