Sunstone Magazine

No Responses to “”

Dan Vogel Says:
December 28th, 2005 at 5:10 PM
CAN OSTLER SAVE BOOK OF MORMON HISTORICITY?
by Dan Vogel

[The following response to Blake Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s second essay on the DNA/Book of Mormon issue has been posted here at the suggestion of Dan Wotherspoon. My thanks to Ron Priddis and Brent Metcalfe for their helpful comments. DV.]

I applaud Blake Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s candor in admitting that ?¢Ç¨?ìthere is no such thing as Book of Mormon archaeology unless and until we find something that can be directly linked to the text somewhere,?¢Ç¨¬ù but he should also be willing to admit that the Book of Mormon makes no direct connection with the Old World either. As expressed in his previous essay, Ostler bases his belief in the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s antiquity on parallels drawn from Hebrew culture (SUNSTONE, Dec. 2004, 71, 72 n. 6). Apparently, he is unimpressed with similar parallels that John Sorenson, Brant Gardner, John Clark, and others have made between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. Why the double standard? Ostler gives no clue. Disappointingly, this kind of contradiction and incoherence appears frequently in Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s presentation.
Another major flaw that appears repeatedly is when Ostler insists (seven times, in fact) that we ?¢Ç¨?ìassess [the Book of Mormon] based on what it says and not on what others say about it,?¢Ç¨¬ù including Joseph Smith. But this is a distinction without a difference since no text speaks for itself. Ostler apparently holds the naive view that texts can be assessed independent of interpretation. While one might distinguish between exegetical and eisegetical readings, or internalist and externalist readings, there is no such thing as an interpretation-free reading. Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assertion, that he is not interpreting and his opponents are, is simply false. His special pleading becomes especially apparent when he can cite no explicit mention of ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù in the Book of Mormon but relies solely on implied meanings of vaguely worded passages. Ostler contradicts himself when he later argues that various passages are ?¢Ç¨?ìbest read as assuming the existence of others already in the land with whom the Nephites and Lamanites interacted, intermarried, and became assimilated.?¢Ç¨¬ù Both apologists and critics bring assumptions to the text, but the question is which set of assumptions best fits the text and the assumed historical setting in which the book was produced?

INDIGENOUS OTHERS

Ostler admits that it ?¢Ç¨?ìrequires careful reading to detect?¢Ç¨¬ù the ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù in the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s text. Actually, Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interpretations do not derive from a ?¢Ç¨?ìcareful reading?¢Ç¨¬ù but are filtered and constructed by an assumption that the Lehites/Mulekites lived in a sub-cultural setting with non-Israelites in a small region of America ?¢Ç¨?ìabout the size of Palestine.?¢Ç¨¬ù Hence, his observations of the text are theory-laden; in other words, he begs the question because his interpretations assume what they are trying to prove. As I will show, Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assumptions not only dictate what he sees in the text, but also permit him to see what is not there.

Skin Color Not a Result of Intermarriage

Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument that the change in the Lamanites?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ skin color is evidence of ?¢Ç¨?ìintermarriage with indigenous populations?¢Ç¨¬ù contradicts what the Book of Mormon says of itself, which is a misstep he claimed he was not going to make. The text does not say the ?¢Ç¨?ìcurse?¢Ç¨¬ù of a dark skin came upon Laman?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s and Lemuel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s descendants because they had broken the covenant by ?¢Ç¨?ìmixing seed?¢Ç¨¬ù with non-Israelites. The reverse is the case: the curse of a dark skin comes upon those (presumably Nephites) who mix their seed with Laman?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s and Lemuel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s (2 Nephi 5:23). Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s observation that in the Bible ?¢Ç¨?ìmixing seed?¢Ç¨¬ù is an ?¢Ç¨?ìidiom for marriage with foreigners?¢Ç¨¬ù might be correct, but that is not how it is used in the Book of Mormon. Already one can see how Ostler is reading not only colors the text but distorts it as well.
Ostler is at odds with the text when he says ?¢Ç¨?ìNephi interprets this change of skin color as a curse.?¢Ç¨¬ù Nephi is not simply inferring from casual observation but speaks prophetically: ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people. … And the Lord spake it, and it was done?¢Ç¨¬ù (2 Nephi 5:22). Ironically, in an effort to defend the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historicity, Ostler finds it necessary to deny one of its miracles as well as the inspiration of one of its prophets by substituting a naturalistic explanation. Thus, Ostler provides us with an example of how interpretation and what the text says are inseparable, for it is not Nephi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìinterpretation?¢Ç¨¬ù that is being discussed, but Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s. His interpretation is that Nephi is describing things differently than how they really happened. Can Ostler give us a reason why we should prefer his interpretation over Nephi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s?
Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s methodology is no better when he discusses Jacob?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s sermon against ?¢Ç¨?ìconcubines?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìmany wives?¢Ç¨¬ù (Jacob 2). He asks: ?¢Ç¨?ìWhere did all of these wives come from??¢Ç¨¬ù and then argues: ?¢Ç¨?ìIt seems to me that the text once again presupposes an influx of others from an already existing population.?¢Ç¨¬ù However, this is not the most logical inference. If one is limited by what the text says, one might conclude, as did M. T. Lamb in 1887, that the anomaly points to the author?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historical naivete and bombastic style of writing (M. T. Lamb, The Golden Bible; or, The Book of Mormon. Is It from God? [New York: Ward & Drummond, 1887], 116-17). Even the best of writers make this kind of mistake and without clear reference to ?¢Ç¨?ìothers,?¢Ç¨¬ù resolving the anomaly as Ostler does is an example of circular reasoning and goes beyond what the text itself says.
It does not matter if Jacob?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of the term ?¢Ç¨?ìabomination?¢Ç¨¬ù in reference to the unauthorized practice of polygamy is ?¢Ç¨?ìconsistent with the Hebrew crime of breach of covenant by intermarrying with populations outside the covenant,?¢Ç¨¬ù as Ostler claims, because that is not how the Book of Mormon uses the term; in fact, the term appears throughout the text with a variety of meanings, but never, so far as I can determine, with the definition Ostler has given. Ostler fails to explain why these Jews, who supposedly find dark skin ?¢Ç¨?ìloathsome,?¢Ç¨¬ù so quickly intermarry with Amerasians. If Jacob is criticizing his brethren for marrying non-Israelites, why doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t he mention God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s curse of a dark skin coming upon their seed? Instead, he tells the Nephite sinners that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you?¢Ç¨¬ù (Jacob 3:5; emphasis added). Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assertion that ?¢Ç¨?ìwithin one or two generations, both the Lamanites and the Nephites had begun to intermarry with others from a preexisting population of ?¢Ç¨Àúindigenous others?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù does not come from a ?¢Ç¨?ìcareful reading?¢Ç¨¬ù of the text as he claims, but rather from speculative inferences drawn from vague and problematic texts.
Finally, Ostler cites Jacob?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s speaking to a ?¢Ç¨?ìquite large?¢Ç¨¬ù assembly of his ?¢Ç¨?ìbrethren?¢Ç¨¬ù at the temple (2 Nephi 6-10) as evidence that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe text presupposes there had been an influx of people into the Nephite population.?¢Ç¨¬ù While the text gives no details about the size of this gathering, Jacob refers to them as the ?¢Ç¨?ìhouse of Israel?¢Ç¨¬ù (6:5). The only ?¢Ç¨?ìGentiles?¢Ç¨¬ù Jacob mentions are latter-day Gentiles. This means one cannot resolve the anomaly by including indigenous others–and again, Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s reasoning is circular.
Ultimately, assuming there are unmentioned ?¢Ç¨?ìothers?¢Ç¨¬ù will not resolve the issue; the unreality of the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s populations is a persistent problem, which Ostler acknowledges with regard to military numbers. Oddly, he does not draw on indigenous others to account for the unrealistic numbers, as other apologists have, but rather argues that it is ?¢Ç¨?ìa common practice in ancient texts to hyperbolically overstate population and areas of land seized to demonstrate the enormity of the feat accomplished.?¢Ç¨¬ù Ancient texts might intentionally exaggerate, but is that what is going on in the Book of Mormon? It is unlikely given the unrealistic population growth right from the start, which despite Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s efforts, remains anomalous.

Reading Others into the Text

Ostler wonders where Sherem came from if not from a nearby group of ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù? He argues that this is the case because the text says Sherem ?¢Ç¨?ìcame … among the people of Nephi?¢Ç¨¬ù (Jacob 7:1) and Jacob doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to know him. Again, Ostler chooses not to interpret the story as evidence that the Book of Mormon is contradictory. The phrase ?¢Ç¨?ìcame … among?¢Ç¨¬ù is ambiguous, but the mystery is less puzzling if the Nephites have suddenly become a ?¢Ç¨?ìmultitude?¢Ç¨¬ù (7:17). In this context, the story is not a problem. The real issue is the ?¢Ç¨?ìmultitude?¢Ç¨¬ù–and the unrealistic numbers exhibited throughout the Book of Mormon. In his effort to construe Sherem as an ?¢Ç¨?ìoutsider,?¢Ç¨¬ù Ostler asserts that Sherem ?¢Ç¨?ìhad learned the [Nephites?¢Ç¨Ñ¢] language by study.?¢Ç¨¬ù However, the text says that he ?¢Ç¨?ìwas learned, that he had a perfect knowledge of the language of the people; wherefore, he could use much flattery, and much power of speech?¢Ç¨¬ù (7:4). The text is speaking to Sherem?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s sophistry, not to his foreign language ability.
Violating his own rule to discuss only what the Book of Mormon says, not what others (including himself) say about it, Ostler then submits the following argument from silence: ?¢Ç¨?ìCertainly Sherem would have introduced himself as so-and-so?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s son had he been a relation.?¢Ç¨¬ù He misstates Brent Metcalfe?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe Book of Mormon is punctilious in noting whether a person is Nephite or Lamanite.?¢Ç¨¬ù Nowhere does Metcalfe argue that every character in the Book of Mormon identifies himself by lineage, rather, that whenever someone is identified, they are consistently said to be either a Lehite or Mulekite; in other words, despite the many opportunities, a non-Israelite is never introduced. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the text that would demand that Sherem give his lineage only if he were a relative. Ostler cannot infer from the text?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s silence that Sherem is a non-Israelite outsider.
The way Ostler handles Helaman 5-7 is a less than ?¢Ç¨?ìcareful reading.?¢Ç¨¬ù When both Nephite and converted Lamanite missionaries from the land southward go into the ?¢Ç¨?ìland northward, to preach to the people?¢Ç¨¬ù (Helaman 6:6), Ostler wonders who these people are, reasoning that they can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be Lamanites because Helaman 5:50 says ?¢Ç¨?ìthe more part of the Lamanites were convinced of [the truth].?¢Ç¨¬ù But the text tells us these people are Nephites who had migrated into the land northward seventeen years earlier (Helaman 3:3-14).

Surviving Jaredites

Citing the nearly four hundred-year overlap in Jaredite and Lehite/Mulekite occupation of the new land, Ostler argues that ?¢Ç¨?ìthere are other people [of non-Israelite descent] already in the same land (somewhere) when Lehi arrives.?¢Ç¨¬ù This is beyond dispute. The sticking point is whether or not there were Jaredites (besides Coriantumr) who survived the mass destruction described in the book of Ether (Ether 13:20-21; Omni 1:20-22). Ostler acknowledges the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claim but questions its accuracy. ?¢Ç¨?ìNo human writer,?¢Ç¨¬ù he argues, ?¢Ç¨?ìcould possibly know that every last one of the Jaredites was included within the population whose slaughter is recounted in the epic tale of the various Jaredite dynasties.?¢Ç¨¬ù Here, again, we see a naturalistic explanation discounting the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s supernatural claims, specifically Ether?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prophecy that ?¢Ç¨?ìevery soul should be destroyed save it were Coriantumr?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìhe should only live to see the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance?¢Ç¨¬ù (Ether 13:21). Ostler also again violates his rule of not going outside the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s text.
In discussing possible Jaredite survivors, Ostler formulates the following convoluted and incoherent arguments:

(1a) ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Jaredites and Mulekites both co-existed with the Nephites for more than 350 years without the Nephites knowing about them.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(2a) ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Mulekites in Zarahemla actually met Coriantumr — and until that time, they too did not know of the Jaredites.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(3a) ?¢Ç¨?ìSo it is clear that there were large populations of Jaredites and Mulekites in nearby regions contemporaneous with the Nephites, but the Nephites didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know anything about them for more than three hundred years.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Ostler can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make this argument while at the same time arguing above (p. 63) that ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù are not mentioned because Nephi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s religious record is unconcerned about ?¢Ç¨?ìprofane history,?¢Ç¨¬ù and below (p. 64) that the text suppresses information about ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù because it is a lineage, tribal, or dynastic history. Even if Lehite ignorance of the Jaredites and Mulekites is allowed, there is no point to this argument since Ostler already argued that Nephite and Lamanite contact with non-Israelite ?¢Ç¨?ìothers?¢Ç¨¬ù was immediate, intimate, and extensive. Upon this fallacious argument, Ostler builds another:

(1b) ?¢Ç¨?ìHence the text is quite clear that large populations of peoples can co-exist for hundreds of years with the Nephites (who keep the record), without the Nephites knowing anything about them.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(2b) ?¢Ç¨?ìJust as their knowledge of the extent of the land they inhabit is limited, clearly the Nephites are not aware of ?¢Ç¨Àúothers?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ whom the Book of Mormon states were in fact present.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(3b) ?¢Ç¨?ìThus, any citation from the Book of Mormon that is interpreted to mean that all inhabitants of the Americas (or wherever Book of Mormon events took place) must be Israelite is contrary to the text itself because, at the very least, the Jaredites are not Israelites.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Ostler seems to imply that if the Lehites did not know about the Jaredites, they were therefore in no position to know whether or not all the inhabitants of the Americas were Israelites. But Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s also wants us to believe the Lehites were immediately in contact with indigenous people on their arrival in the New World. The passage which Ostler alludes is Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prophecy in 2 Nephi 1, which I will examine below. For now, it is important to know that it does not state that all inhabitants of the Americas must be Israelite, but that the Israelite inhabitants will ?¢Ç¨?ìpossess this land unto themselves?¢Ç¨¬ù until the arrival of ?¢Ç¨?ìother nations.?¢Ç¨¬ù Obviously, the Jaredites did not threaten Israelite inheritance in the same way Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s indigenous others would have. Building one fallacious argument upon another, Ostler continues:

(1c) ?¢Ç¨?ìAs Hugh Nibley argues, … the Jaredites probably originated largely in Asia because the journey recounted in Ether appears to have traversed the steppes of Asia. Thus the Jaredites may well have been largely Asiatic.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(2c) ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Book of Mormon does not identify the origins of the others who ?¢Ç¨Àúmixed seed?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ with the Lamanites or whom the Nephites took as plural wives.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(3c) ?¢Ç¨?ìWe know any indigenous others had to be of largely Asiatic origins.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(4c) ?¢Ç¨?ìSo, based on the text of the Book of Mormon, we should expect to find Asiatic DNA in American Indians.?¢Ç¨¬ù

This argument comes under the fallacy of obscurum per obscurius, or attempting to explain the more certain with the less certain. Nibley?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s speculation that the Jaredites picked up some Asiatic peoples along the way and brought them to America is intended to harmonize the text with what scientists know about Amerindian origins. However, migrations to the New World from Asia occurred about 15,000 years ago, well before the Jaredites. Moreover, the Book of Mormon does not support Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assertion that the Jaredites were ?¢Ç¨?ìlargely Asiatic?¢Ç¨¬ù; rather, it suggests they were largely Middle-eastern. To suggest otherwise is wishful thinking and a violation of Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rule to exclude what other interpreters say about the Book of Mormon, which would include Nibley.
Proposition (2c) is an attempt to set up an argument from silence as well as from ignorance. Proposition (3c) is information obtained external to the text, so the conclusion (4c) that the predominance of Asiatic DNA among Native Americas should be no surprise does not follow. (2c) seems to suggest that the ?¢Ç¨?ìothers?¢Ç¨¬ù with whom the Nephites and Lamanites intermarried were Jaredites, which would make his speculation about Asiatic genes imperative. If one does not accept the Nibley-Ostler speculation that the Jaredites were ?¢Ç¨?ìlargely Asiatic,?¢Ç¨¬ù then Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument about skin color through intermarriage goes with it. Ostler follows these confused arguments with several exaggerated summary assertions:

(1d) ?¢Ç¨?ìViewed as an ancient text in the genre of dynastic history, the Book of Mormon does not preclude the presence of many ?¢Ç¨Àúothers?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ besides those in whom it is particularly interested.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(2d) ?¢Ç¨?ìFor these reasons and others, the DNA argument cannot disprove the possibility that the Book of Mormon is a historical document.?¢Ç¨¬ù

(3d) ?¢Ç¨?ìThe DNA argument is based upon overly simplistic assumptions about the text which are not consistent with what the text itself says.?¢Ç¨¬ù

The first of these statements (1d) makes the extraordinary assumption that Book of Mormon prophets were uninterested in the majority Asiatic population. This sets up the following circular argument:

Why didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t Book of Mormon prophets write about the ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù?
Because they weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t interested in them.
How do you know they weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t interested in them?
Because they didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mention them.

The next statement (2d) begs the question. DNA does not disprove Book of Mormon historicity if one thinks like Ostler that: (1) ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù are present despite the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s silence about them; (2) the Book of Mormon describes an island setting (or a limited geography of some kind) and local colonization; (3) the text does not always mean what it says; (4) the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s authors were not interested in Native Americans. If one does not accept this string of apologetic defenses, then DNA remains a central problem.
As previously argued, the idea (3d) that the text speaks for itself is ?¢Ç¨?ìoverly simplistic.?¢Ç¨¬ù Ostler is oblivious to his text-corrupting assumptions. If Ostler is right that the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s author had ?¢Ç¨?ìoverly simplistic assumptions?¢Ç¨¬ù about ancient America, that someone was likely Joseph Smith, who, along with many of his contemporaries believed all Native Americans were of Hebrew origin.

Was Lehi Inspired?

Ostler writes that ?¢Ç¨?ìany citation from the Book of Mormon that is interpreted to mean that all inhabitants of the Americas … must be Israelite is contrary to the text itself because, at the very least, the Jaredites are not Israelites.?¢Ç¨¬ù This was in response to Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prophetic utterance in 2 Nephi that, according to Brent Metcalfe, precludes indigenous others. Among other things, Lehi declares:

“It is wisdom that this land should be kept as yet from the knowledge of other nations; for behold, many nations would overrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance. Wherefore, I, Lehi, have obtained a promise, that inasmuch as those whom the Lord God shall bring out of the land of Jerusalem shall keep his commandments, they shall prosper upon the face of this land; and they shall be kept from all other nations, that they may possess this land unto themselves” (2 Nephi 1:8; emphasis added).

Ostler quibbles about the meaning of ?¢Ç¨?ìthis land,?¢Ç¨¬ù insisting that it is too vague to determine what is meant. However, Nephi previously prophesied that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe Lord God will raise up a mighty nation among the Gentiles, yea, even upon the face of this land; and by them shall our seed be scattered?¢Ç¨¬ù (1 Nephi 22:7; emphasis added), which is difficult to harmonize with Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s island thesis. Speaking to the Nephites in the land southward, Jesus declares: ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd behold, this people will I establish in this land, … and it shall be a New Jerusalem?¢Ç¨¬ù (3 Ne. 20:22; emphasis added; cf. 21:21-26; Ether 13), which Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s early revelations located in Independence, Missouri (D&C 57:1-3; 84:1-5). Obviously, in prophetic terms, ?¢Ç¨?ìthis land?¢Ç¨¬ù refers to the entire continent.
Ostler argues that ?¢Ç¨?ìthis land?¢Ç¨¬ù cannot refer to an area requiring more than several days of walking because the non-Israelite Jaredites were not far away at the time and would render the statement ?¢Ç¨?ìfalse at the time it was made. … Thus it seems fairly clear to me that Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s statement cannot mean what Metcalfe claims it does.?¢Ç¨¬ù Why not? This is odd coming from someone who has argued that prophets don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t always speak prophetically and are limited by their own assumptions and cultural expectations.
Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prophecy pertains to his descendants (as well as others ?¢Ç¨?ìwhom the Lord God shall bring out of Jerusalem?¢Ç¨¬ù) inheriting the land ?¢Ç¨?ìunto themselves?¢Ç¨¬ù and preventing ?¢Ç¨?ìother nations?¢Ç¨¬ù from coming to ?¢Ç¨?ìoverrun the land, that there would be no place for an inheritance?¢Ç¨¬ù (2 Nephi 1:9). Prophetically speaking, the doomed Jaredites did not threaten to ?¢Ç¨?ìoverrun the land?¢Ç¨¬ù and therefore did not conflict with Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s declaration in the way ?¢Ç¨?ìindigenous others?¢Ç¨¬ù would. As far as the text is concerned, there was no contact between the Lehites and Jaredites and only Coriantumr lived to ?¢Ç¨?ìsee the fulfilling of the prophecies which had been spoken concerning another people receiving the land for their inheritance?¢Ç¨¬ù (Ether 13:21; emphasis added). So the presence of the Jaredites does not force one to interpret ?¢Ç¨?ìthis land?¢Ç¨¬ù in a non-hemispheric way.
Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s words, according to Ostler, pertain to those who were brought ?¢Ç¨?ìout of the land of Jerusalem?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìnot to everyone already present on the face of the land.?¢Ç¨¬ù In addition, Ostler claims, the prophetic promise was conditional and was broken within ?¢Ç¨?ìone generation.?¢Ç¨¬ù But Lehi is clear that his posterity will first ?¢Ç¨?ìdwindle in unbelief,?¢Ç¨¬ù then they will be ?¢Ç¨?ìscattered and smitten?¢Ç¨¬ù by the ?¢Ç¨?ìother nations,?¢Ç¨¬ù whom the Lord will ?¢Ç¨?ìbring … and give unto them power … [to] take away from them the lands of their possessions?¢Ç¨¬ù (2 Nephi 1:10). While the land is divided between the Nephites and Lamanites shortly after Lehi dies, there is no indication that either of them have lost their inheritance to ?¢Ç¨?ìother nations.?¢Ç¨¬ù If Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prophecy had been fulfilled, one would expect it to be noted by the prophets.
Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prediction should be read in light of Nephi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s visions which precede it. Using similar words, Nephi predicted that the Lehites would not loose their lands until after the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites, ?¢Ç¨?ìdwindle[d] in unbelief,?¢Ç¨¬ù and were ?¢Ç¨?ìscattered and smitten?¢Ç¨¬ù by European Gentiles (1 Nephi 12:20-23; 13:10-14, 30-31, 34-35; cf. Alma 45:10, 12). As Lehi had linked ?¢Ç¨?ìthis land?¢Ç¨¬ù with ?¢Ç¨?ìland of promise,?¢Ç¨¬ù Nephi had seen ?¢Ç¨?ìa man among the Gentiles, who … went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land?¢Ç¨¬ù (13:12). If this alludes to Columbus?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s discovery of America, it is difficult to limit Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s and Nephi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìpromised land?¢Ç¨¬ù to an island somewhere off the west coast of the Americas or even a small section of Mesoamerica.

LIMITED GEOGRAPHY THEORIES

Ostler hurries over his discussion of the limited geography theory, but it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s precisely what is at issue. His criticism of Earl Wunderli?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 2002 essay in DIALOGUE, which critiqued John Sorenson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Tehuantepec theory, is superficial and disingenuous. Ostler indulges in special pleading when he cites Brant Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s response in the FARMS REVIEW as ?¢Ç¨?ìa credible response that substantially undermines Wunderli?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s arguments.?¢Ç¨¬ù In light of his island theory, Ostler agrees with Sorenson-Gardner only on distances, but is unconvinced by their arguments for Tehuantepec, presumably for the same reasons as Wunderli.
One cannot simply invoke distance problems as the reason for rejecting hemispheric geography. To do so is to beg the question. They must propose a geography that fits the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description of a narrow neck of land between lands northward and southward better than traditional hemispheric geography. Even Ostler recognizes that Sorenson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s theory doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t do that. If Panama is a better fit and hemispheric geography comes into play, then distances are problematic and can be read as evidence of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s naivete. Evidently Joseph Smith and first-generation Mormons (and most present believers in the Book of Mormon as well) were oblivious to problems of distance and population growth. As far as can be determined, M. T. Lamb?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1887 book The Golden Bible was first to question Book of Mormon historicity based on these problems.

Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Island Theory

Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s idea about Book of Mormon events taking place ?¢Ç¨?ìnot on the mainland or continent, but upon an island?¢Ç¨¬ù is sheer desperation and not likely to be embraced by the apologetic community. The island theory has been suggested and rejected by the apologetic community, mostly because it rests on one rather ambiguous passage, 2 Nephi 10:20: ?¢Ç¨?ìfor the Lord has made the sea our path, behold we are upon an isle of the sea.?¢Ç¨¬ù Most interpreters have concluded that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe fact that they came there by ship led Jacob to refer to it as an isle?¢Ç¨¬ù (James H. Fleugel in FARMS Review 3 [1991]: 99-100). Moreover, the ?¢Ç¨?ìcritical passage?¢Ç¨¬ù in Isaiah 49:1 upon which Jacob is commenting is translated ?¢Ç¨?ìislands?¢Ç¨¬ù in the King James Version but, as Ostler noted, as ?¢Ç¨?ìcoastlands?¢Ç¨¬ù in other versions. The fact that Ostler provides the underlying Hebrew words in Hebrew script is curious–as is the fact that his authority for the English comes from a German-language commentary on the Hebrew.
In any case, Ostler maintains that ?¢Ç¨¬ùJacob couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t possibly have a complete geographic knowledge of the Americas?¢Ç¨¬ù and therefore could not have referred to it as an ?¢Ç¨?ìisland.?¢Ç¨¬ù Oddly, he suggests that the only way Jacob could have known he was on an island was by ?¢Ç¨?ìcircumnavigating?¢Ç¨¬ù it. He forgets that Jacob was speaking prophetically. If Ostler seeks naturalistic explanations, perhaps he should consult Ethan Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1825 View of the Hebrews: ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd the places from which they are recovered are noted; among which are ?¢Ç¨Àúthe isles of the sea;?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ or lands away over the sea, and ?¢Ç¨Àúthe four corners of the earth.?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ Certainly then, from America!?¢Ç¨¬ù (Ethan Smith, View of the Hebrew; or, The Tribes of Israel in America [Poultney, Vt.: Smith and Shute, 1825], 232-33).
A theory that is created for the sole purpose of overcoming problems in a central theory and cannot be tested is known to scientists as an ad hoc hypothesis. The more a theory relies on such devices, the less scientific it becomes and a sign that it is about to be replaced.

Limited Geography vs. Early Church History

Ostler acknowledges that ?¢Ç¨?ìmany Church leaders?¢Ç¨¬ù have ?¢Ç¨?ìtaught that all Amerindians are descended solely from Israelites,?¢Ç¨¬ù but he finds this irrelevant. He simultaneously admits that his interpretation is not what the text says, but rather what needs to be assumed to make sense of the text, especially in light of new evidence. But why should we prefer Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interpretations over those of others?
What I have found is that the Book of Mormon once made perfect sense to those steeped in the Mound Builder Myth. This was the prevailing belief in Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s day that the earthen mounds and ruins of North, Central, and South America were constructed anciently by a race of white-skinned agriculturalists who were destroyed by Indians in the Great Lakes Region prior to discovery by Europeans (See Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon: Religious Solutions from Columbus to Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986]; ). Both the Book of Mormon and early readers participated in a discourse with this part of the prevailing culture, and any interpretation that does not include the dominant voice in the discussion is incomplete.
Because the Book of Mormon specifically and repeatedly addressed its readers, describing conditions that would exist at the time the book first appeared, Ostler is wrong to de-contextualize the narrative. Paying attention to Joseph Smith and other early commentators can illuminate the text in ways otherwise unavailable to scholars and guard against the fallacy of presentism. Ostler attempts to minimize this evidence by given two competing excuses:

(1) ?¢Ç¨?ìIf a Prophet teaches something that is false, then either that prophet is: (a) not a true prophet; or (b), not speaking prophetically.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Ostler chooses (b). So how does he explain Brent Metcalfe?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s documentation of revelatory pronouncements on the topic?

(2) ?¢Ç¨?ìEven when a prophet is speaking prophetically, the revelation reflects the prophet?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assumptions, language, and cultural horizons.?¢Ç¨¬ù

So, according to Ostler, when a prophet is speaking prophetically, he is not necessarily speaking the precise truth. (Apparently, he is a partly true and partly false prophet.) The arbitrary application of such a definition renders ?¢Ç¨?ì(a) not a true prophet?¢Ç¨¬ù in Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s syllogism meaningless. But really, can Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s revelations about building a New Jerusalem among the Lamanites be dismissed as reflections of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assumptions or ?¢Ç¨?ìdoctrinal overbeliefs?¢Ç¨¬ù (D&C 28:8-9, 14; 30:6; 32:2; 3:18-20; 10:48; 19:27; 49:24; 54:8; 57:4; 109:65-66)?

Zelph, The White Lamanite

Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s response to ?¢Ç¨?ìZelph,?¢Ç¨¬ù the ?¢Ç¨?ìwhite Lamanite,?¢Ç¨¬ù is unsatisfactory (cf. Joseph Smith, et al., History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, B. H. Roberts, ed., 7 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1932-51], 2:79). Despite his conclusion that ?¢Ç¨?ìwe just don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know enough about this incident to claim anything reliable,?¢Ç¨¬ù we know as much about this incident as we do about any historical event. It is certainly right to be skeptical about the ?¢Ç¨?ìreliability?¢Ç¨¬ù of sources and a historian?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ability to reconstruct the past, but Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s skepticism is arbitrary. He states: ?¢Ç¨?ìI believe that the reliability of these accounts and the timing of their having been set in writing are sufficiently suspect that we are best advised to be careful about their claims.?¢Ç¨¬ù Kenneth Godfrey examined thirteen sources dealing with the Zelph story, four of which were written at or near the time of the event. Reuben McBride, for example, recorded:

“Tuesday 3 [June 1834] visited the mounds. A skeleton was dug up, [Joseph Smith] said his name was Zelph a great warrior under the Prophet Omandagus. … he was killed in battle. Said he was a man of God and the curse was taken off or in part he was a white Lamanite” (Reuben McBride, Diary, 3 June 1834, LDS Church Archives).

The account in Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s own history, which was published for the first time in the Times and Seasons on 1 January 1846, was composed from the accounts of Wilford Woodruff and Heber C. Kimball, both of whom were present when Joseph Smith made his statement. Under the heading ?¢Ç¨?ìMay 8th 1834,?¢Ç¨¬ù Woodruff recorded:

“Brother Joseph had a vission respecting the person he said he was a white Lamanite, the curse was taken from him or at least in part, he was killed in battle with an arrow, the arrow was found among his ribs, … his name was Zelph. … Zelph was a large thick set man and a man of God, he was a warrior under the great prophet that was known from the hill Cumorah to the Rocky mountains. The above knowledge Joseph received in a vision” (Wilford Woodruff, Diary, 8 May 1834, LDS Church Archives; Scott G. Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff’s Journal, 9 vols. [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1983-85], 1:10; angled brackets indicate words written above the line).

Kimball wrote:

“It was made known to Joseph that he had been an officer who fell in battle, in the last destruction among the Lamanites, and his name was Zelph. … Brother Joseph had enquired of the Lord and it was made known in a vision” (?¢Ç¨?ìExtracts from H. C. Kimball?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Journal,?¢Ç¨¬ù Times and Seasons 6 [1 February 1845]: 788).

If Ostler is uncertain about the story of Zelph, how certain can he be about the relationship between any historical event and the source documents? For example, how would the story of the restoration of priesthood keys through Peter, James, and John, which has less and more distant documentation, fair against Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s extreme caution? It is beyond dispute that Joseph Smith claimed revelation for his comments about Zelph, yet Ostler tries to obscure the evidence from ?¢Ç¨?ìjournals of other Latter-day Saints who heard Joseph establish that some present talked about a Zelph who was a white Lamanite?¢Ç¨¬ù (emphasis added). His prejudicial handling of the sources prevents him from admitting the information came from a prophetic declaration and suggests it was just talk among those present.
Next, Ostler argues that the most that can be established is that ?¢Ç¨?ìat some time a person who could claim to be a Lamanite or of Lamanite descent was present in western Ohio [Illinois]. Such information is not incompatible with a limited geography because even if there was a Zelph (which remains in doubt) he could have been a descendant of Lamanites who had wandered far from where the events in the Book of Mormon occurred.?¢Ç¨¬ù But Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s own letter of 3 June 1834 to Emma explained that he and his men had been

“wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionally the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & and their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity” (Joseph Smith to Emma Smith, 4 June 1834, Letterbook, 2:57-58, LDS Church Archives, in Dean C. Jessee, ed., The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984], 324).

Rather than using Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s letter to contextualize and clarify what happened, Ostler uses the letter to try to establish that Smith ?¢Ç¨?ìneither claims … revelation, nor does he make any reference to ?¢Ç¨ÀúZelph.?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ The [letter] establishes only what we already know, i.e., that Joseph Smith assumed at that time that all American Indians were Lamanites.?¢Ç¨¬ù In fact, the letter resolves Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s question about the relationship of Zelph to the Book of Mormon, which Ostler describes as ?¢Ç¨?ìextremely unclear.?¢Ç¨¬ù How likely is that Joseph Smith would describe prophets among post-Book of Mormon peoples or ?¢Ç¨?ìa white Lamanite?¢Ç¨¬ù after Book of Mormon times? Note also how Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s inspired declaration about Onandagus?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s reputation spanning the North American continent creates the same kind of geographical problem that Ostler is trying to escape in the Book of Mormon.

New Insight or an Apologetic Device?

Ostler tells us ?¢Ç¨?ìthe limited geography model emerged before the turn of the [twentieth] century and was derived from a careful reading of the Book of Mormon text itself, not a desire to escape challenges from science or anthropology.?¢Ç¨¬ù Citing Matthew Roper?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s recent article, Ostler adds that RLDS Louis Edward Hills was ?¢Ç¨?ìthe first writer to advance a fully limited Book of Mormon geography?¢Ç¨¬ù between 1917 and 1924 (Matthew Roper, ?¢Ç¨?ìLimited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations,?¢Ç¨¬ù FARMS Review 16/2 [2004]: 260). As far as Utah Mormons were concerned, Roper traced ?¢Ç¨?ìthe first versions of a fully limited Book of Mormon geography?¢Ç¨¬ù to the years ?¢Ç¨?ì1920 to 1926?¢Ç¨¬ù (Ibid., 261), specifically removal of some footnotes from the 1920 edition of the Book of Mormon and Janne Sjodahl?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1927 article in the Improvement Era as starting points (Ibid., 257, 261).
As Brent Metcalfe and I have pointed out, B. H. Roberts suggested on 22 January 1921 that if Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s revelations designating South America as the place of Lehi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s landing could be set aside, ?¢Ç¨?ìit would be easier to reply to adverse critics of the Book of Mormon.?¢Ç¨¬ù Otherwise ?¢Ç¨?ìthe enormous distances to travel present a serious difficulty?¢Ç¨¬ù (Janne M. Sjodahl, Diary, LDS Archives, cited in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002], viii). Roberts was aware of Lamb?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1887 book and no doubt included it among those ?¢Ç¨?ìadverse critics.?¢Ç¨¬ù Therefore, Ostler would be more accurate if he said the limited geography model was derived from Lamb?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s careful reading of the Book of Mormon text. Roberts was also aware that Native American languages demonstrated a pre-Lehite migration and a diversity that the Book of Mormon could not account for (B. H. Boberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, ed. Brigham D. Madsen [Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1985], 91-92). He posited: ?¢Ç¨?ìother races, speaking other tongues, developing other cultures, and making, though absolutely unknown to Book of Mormon people, other histories?¢Ç¨¬ù (Ibid., 92). The limited geography was his way to respond to critics and harmonize the Book of Mormon with new scientific discoveries.

Did Joseph Smith Change His Views on Geography?

Kenneth Godfrey, as Ostler notes, asserted that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe thinking of early church leaders regarding Book of Mormon geography was subject to modification, indicating that they themselves did not see the issue as settled.?¢Ç¨¬ù To support this point, Godfrey cited two 1842 editorials from the Times and Seasons, probably written by managing editor John Taylor, which linked John L. Stephens?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s discovery of Central American ruins with Book of Mormon cities (Kenneth Godfrey, ?¢Ç¨?ìWhat is the Significance of Zelph??¢Ç¨¬ù Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 8/2 [1999]: 72. Cf. Times and Seasons 3 [1 October 1842]: 927-28). Because these editorials associated Zarahemla and Nephi with the ruins of Quirigua and Palenque, some apologists cited them as evidence that Taylor (and possibly Joseph Smith) ?¢Ç¨?ìhad come up with a different model of geography?¢Ç¨¬ù than what had been previously assumed (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient America Setting For the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1985], 2-6; John L. Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book [Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992], 11-12). By placing two cities from the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìland southward?¢Ç¨¬ù in Central America, was he not excluding Panama as the ?¢Ç¨?ìneck of land?¢Ç¨¬ù and South America as the ?¢Ç¨?ìland southward?¢Ç¨¬ù? The situation is complex and deserves discussion given its frequent use by apologists.
What the apologists fail to note is that Taylor?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s geographic innovations were not inspired by a ?¢Ç¨?ìcareful reading of the Book of Mormon text,?¢Ç¨¬ù as Ostler asserts, but rather by apologetic concerns. Seven months before Taylor?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s first editorial, Parley P. Pratt noted Stephens?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s discoveries and linked the Central American ruins with the ?¢Ç¨?ìmany cities as existing among the Nephites on the ?¢Ç¨Àúnarrow neck of land?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ … ?¢Ç¨ÀúTeancum, Boaz, Jordan, Desolation,?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ &c.?¢Ç¨¬ù (Millennial Star, March 1842, 165; emphasis added). These cities are associate with Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s flight through the land northward toward Cumorah (Mormon 4-5), which is as one would expect from someone holding the view that South America was the land southward and everything above Panama was the land northward. However, Taylor wanted to make the link stronger for maximum apologetic effect. In the first article (15 September 1842), he associated the ruins at Palenque with the temple Nephi built (2 Nephi 5:16), but in his second article (1 October 1842) he enthusiastically announced that Zarahemla had probably been found. The evidence was Stephens?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description of a ?¢Ç¨?ìlarge round stone, with the sides sculptured in hieroglyphics?¢Ç¨¬ù at Quirigua, which Taylor linked to the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description of a ?¢Ç¨?ìlarge stone … with engravings on it?¢Ç¨¬ù that Coriantumr evidently left with the people of Zarahemla (Omni 1:20-22). In Taylor?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s pre-archaeological mind, this was as close to proof for the Book of Mormon as one could hope for, and he wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t about to let the opportunity pass: ?¢Ç¨?ìWe are not agoing to declare positively that the ruins of Quirigua are those of Zarahemla, but when the land and the stones, and the books tell the story so plain …?¢Ç¨¬ù (Times and Seasons 3 [1 October 1842]: 927).
To locate Zarahemla in Central America, rather than South America as expected, Taylor introduced an innovative but unlikely interpretation of Alma 22:32–one that Orson Pratt and most readers of the Book of Mormon evidently found unpersuasive for obvious reasons. Taylor decided that the Nephites ?¢Ç¨?ìlived about the narrow neck of land, which now embraces Central America, with all the cities that can be found?¢Ç¨¬ù (Times and Seasons 3 [15 September 1842]: 915). In other words, the ?¢Ç¨?ìneck of land?¢Ç¨¬ù was the entire area between the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to the north and Panama to the south. In the next issue, he made this even more clear.
Did Taylor incorrectly place Zarahemla on the neck of land rather than in the land southward? That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s possible, but he may have been attempting something more subtle. By moving the ?¢Ç¨?ìline?¢Ç¨¬ù that divided the lands Bountiful and Desolation (mentioned in Alma 22:32) from the bottom of the neck to the top, he was able to construe, although quite awkwardly, that the neck of land was part of the land southward, rather than part of the land northward as previously and subsequently conceived. In another editorial in the 15 September 1842 issue, perhaps also written by Taylor, there are references to the Jaredites occupying North America and Lehi landing ?¢Ç¨?ìa little south of the Isthmus of Darien [Panama]?¢Ç¨¬ù (Times and Seasons 3 [15 September 1842]: 922). South America has not been excluded, although it has become a peripheral concern since it has become part of that undefined Lamanite territory.
Other than in the writings of John E. Page cited by Roper (Roper, 248-50), Taylor?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s geographic innovations evidently did not catch on. Factors that made the Taylor-Page models less appealing were: (1) conceiving the neck of land as part of the land southward and South America, rather than as part of the land northward and North America, was awkward; (2) the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, at about 120 miles as opposed to about 30 miles for Panama, was too wide for the boundary ?¢Ç¨?ìline?¢Ç¨¬ù mentioned in Alma 22:32; (3) it became necessary to account for the discovery of similar ruins in South America (e.g., the Inca in Peru; see Times and Seasons 5 [15 December 1844]: 744-48); and (4) the tradition that Lehi landed in South America, probably Chile, was too strong to set aside (first mentioned in ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Golden Bible,?¢Ç¨¬ù Observer and Telegraph 1 [18 November 1830]: 1).
It is important to note that resolving distance problems was not a factor in pre-1887 discussions of Book of Mormon geography. The Taylor-Page models did not resolve distance problems since both evidently located Cumorah in New York. While both Taylor and Page were trying to make the Central American ruins relevant to Book of Mormon readers, neither attempted to overturn hemispheric geography because the rationale for doing so was simply not in place. At most, Taylor and Page demonstrate a propensity to distort the text to serve apologetic needs.

CONCLUSION

Ostler admits there is no archaeological evidence for Book of Mormon historicity, that the geographical location is unknown, and that the people described in the book of Mormon are hopelessly lost. In support of historicity, he can only offer a few interesting parallels to Hebrew culture. None of this lives up to what the Book of Mormon once seemed to promise. Perhaps it is time for a real paradigm shift.
Dan Says:
January 17th, 2006 at 4:24 PM
I received the following as a letter to the editor from Robert Rees in which he responds to Dan Vogel’s letter to the editor in the September 2005 Sunstone, which was a response to Rees’s letter in the May 2005 issue, which was written about Vogel’s essay in the March 2005 issue (you can find links to all of these various pieces above). Given our recent decision to move discussions of Book of Mormon historicity from the magazine to the blog, I’ve posted it here.

Dan Wotherspoon

——————-

Hope for a Continuing Dialogue

?¢Ç¨?ìBelief is both prize & battlefield, within the mind
& in the mind?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s mirror, the world.?¢Ç¨¬ù
–David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas

In his recent response to my letter to the editor regarding his Sunstone article (?¢Ç¨?ìSame Old, Same Old,?¢Ç¨¬ù September 2005), Dan Vogel accuses me of reiterating ?¢Ç¨?ìthe apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ position without responding to the main issues raised by [his] essay.?¢Ç¨¬ù He is right that I did not directly address his argument about certain apologist scholars?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ misappropriation of Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s philosophical position regarding paradigms, but that was not my purpose. Rather, the thrust of my argument was that I felt Vogel was being either na?É¬Øve or disingenuous in offering a paradigmatic option (that believing Mormons should accept the Book of Mormon as non-historical but nevertheless ?¢Ç¨?ìinspired?¢Ç¨¬ù) that most Mormons, scholars and lay members alike, would not consider a choice at all. I accused Vogel of being disingenuous because I felt he was using ?¢Ç¨?ìprophet?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìinspired?¢Ç¨¬ù in ways that he knew contradicted the typical Mormon understanding of these words. For example, Vogel cites Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s response to the question as to whether he considered himself to be a prophet?¢Ç¨Äù?¢Ç¨?ìYes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äùto suggest that Joseph considered himself a prophet only in the loosest sense of that word. But Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s own extensive research and writing on Joseph Smith shows that Joseph considered his prophetic powers and calling anything but ordinary (like ?¢Ç¨?ìevery other man?¢Ç¨¬ù). As Richard Bushman reveals in his new biography of Joseph Smith (Joseph Smith: Rough Rolling Stone, when Joseph declared boldly in 1831, ?¢Ç¨?ìI am Joseph the Prophet,?¢Ç¨¬ù ?¢Ç¨?ìit was a startling claim for an unprepossing young man of twenty-five.?¢Ç¨¬ù Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument that Joseph ?¢Ç¨?ìsincerely believed himself to be an inspired prophet?¢Ç¨Äùbut not in the way he encouraged his followers to believe,?¢Ç¨¬ù is not supported by any evidence other than what I consider Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s misappropriation of Alma 6:8.

What Vogel seems not to understand, but which is apparent to anyone who attends a typical (and they are all typical!) Latter-day Saint sacrament meeting, is that the average Mormon is bound to his or her religious beliefs (including the First Vision and the Book of Mormon), not by logic or history but rather, to use Robert Frost?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s line, ?¢Ç¨?ìby countless silken ties of love and thought.?¢Ç¨¬ù These ties include such things as church service, the bearing of testimonies, temple attendance, hymn singing, scripture study, and fellowship, to name only a few. For better or worse, most Mormons don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t bother themselves about such things as scholarly debates, scientific discoveries, or, perhaps most lamentably, their own history. The social-religious system of the Mormon Church is conservative, hierarchical, and somewhat insular. Thus, the paradigm that Vogel suggests, even if it were based on irrefutable science and scholarship (which it is not), would not be seriously considered by most Mormons. Therefore, if Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s proposal is not disingenuous, it is certainly na?É¬Øve, no matter how sincerely offered.

Vogel accuses me of accusing him of being ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow-minded.?¢Ç¨¬ù I did not make such an accusation in my letter, nor would I use such a term in regard to him. I do believe from his writing and from conversations we have had that Vogel has a limited scope as to what he considers acceptable evidence. Clearly he puts more stock in certain empirical rather than non-empirical data. But it is more complicated than that. In the introduction to his biography of Joseph Smith, Vogel admits his bias toward empirical data but also reveals that he employs a more complex epistemological approach. What I consider ironic is, on the one hand, Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rejection of all supernatural evidence for the Restoration (Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s visions, the visions and manifestations of Joseph?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s family and associates, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, etc.) and, on the other, his acceptance of what many consider wildly psychobiographical speculation. What Vogel seems not to recognize is that his seeing the Book of Mormon narrative through the prism of the Smith family dynamics is at least as subjective and speculative as the arguments he dismisses from those who see the book as being an authentic, divinely inspired, angelically delivered text. In other words, to me, seeing Smith family ghosts in the Book of Mormon narrative does not differ all that much from seeing angels in Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s bedroom. Neither can be empirically proven. I see Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s imposing the Smith family dynamics on the Book of Mormon narrative as a procrustean bed of analysis. At the very least it is a highly imaginative reading of the text.

Vogel calls my challenge to naturalist critics to explain how the Book of Mormon could be a product of nineteenth century culture ?¢Ç¨?ìnothing but a red herring?¢Ç¨¬ù that ?¢Ç¨?ìhas no probative value in determining whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical,?¢Ç¨¬ù but I contend that it is at least as legitimate a challenge as those presented by naturalist critics. Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument that ?¢Ç¨?ìthere is simply no direct evidence linking the book of Mormon to ancient America?¢Ç¨¬ù and that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ case rests on isolated parallels and wishful thinking,?¢Ç¨¬ù does not accommodate what for many constitute serious evidence of ancient elements, elements that cannot be explained from Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s information or cultural environment. If these cannot be demonstrated as coming from Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s mind or found in nineteenth century America (as some persuasively argue), then it is legitimate to suggest they came from outside that environment?¢Ç¨Äùand to challenge those who are convinced that it did come from within that environment to demonstrate exactly (or even approximately) how they did so.

Vogel is right to say that there is no such thing as a neutral position, but I was not presenting myself as neutral?¢Ç¨Äùonly as someone who is concerned that the polar shouting I experience on both sides of the divide doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to lead to anything constructive. I confess that I am not completely objective or dispassionate. However, trying to be as intellectually and as spiritually honest as I can, I thoughtfully consider both the legitimacy of intellectual challenges to my faith and the validity of spiritual experiences of my faith. As I have tried to make clear, I cannot seem to escape the tension between the two kinds of experiences, particularly because I see both as having strengths and weaknesses?¢Ç¨Äùthat is, one can be as deceived by too great a reliance on reason as by too great a reliance on spiritual or spectral evidence.

While it is true, as Vogel contends, that the term ?¢Ç¨?ìnaturalist?¢Ç¨¬ù does not ?¢Ç¨?ìdescribe all those who question Book of Mormon historicity,?¢Ç¨¬ù it does seem an accurate appellation for Vogel himself, who seems to eschew all non-naturalistic phenomena or explanations (again except for the speculative biographical data mentioned above). He must be aware that modern neuroscience sees a much more complex view of reality. As Joseph Chilton Pearce and Michael Mendizza state, ?¢Ç¨?ìPerception, awareness, what we call reality is an ever-changing blend of multiple data streams?¢Ç¨Äùexternal, internal, past, imagined, and intuitive?¢Ç¨Äùsimultaneously displayed in consciousness.?¢Ç¨¬ù Most Latter-day Saints give primacy to their felt experience with the Book of Mormon, and the breadth and depth of such experience is more persuasive to them than such things as the absence of Semitic DNA markers among Native American lineages. In other words, the spiritual logic of their encounter with the book trumps other kinds of logic. So, even if Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument were iron-clad (which I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t believe it is), it would make little difference to the majority of Latter-day Saints. That may be lamentable, but it is no less a reality. This is why I consider his hope for a paradigm shift unrealistic.

Vogel tries to turn the tables on me by saying that my use of Stephen J. Gould?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s idea of non-overlapping-magisteria makes his case, but he obscures Gould?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s point, which is not that bad or pseudo-science has any validity but that the realms of scientific inquiry and religious experience have separate domains and that it is illegitimate to judge either by the standards of the other. Thus, believers must regard the findings of science as significant (if not always conclusive) and non-believers must respect the experience of faith (even if not persuaded by it). These are, as Gould argues, non-overlapping (i.e., entirely separate epistemological) realms. This is significant in relation to some naturalists and to some apologists who keep judging each another by the wrong criteria.

I have tried to make my own position clear: As a scholar and a believer, I value both magesteria; in fact, I have spent my professional and personal life trying to foster respectful dialogue between the two. As a scholar I have tried to use the best critical skills of my particular profession (literary history and textual analysis) in coming to terms with the text of the Book of Mormon. In doing so, I am persuaded that it is an amazingly complex, sophisticated, and, at times, profound text. As objectively as I able to weigh the evidence, I am persuaded that it is highly unlikely a product of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s or one of his contemporaries?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ mind and imagination. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that it might be. As I have said elsewhere, if someone were to discover a proto-manuscript of the Book of Mormon, say written in 1795, I would have to revise my thinking.

The question I put seriously to Vogel is whether if it had been shown that there was DNA evidence of Semitic bloodlines among indigenous American populations that would have convinced him that the Book of Mormon was what it claims to be. From all he has said and written on this subject, I seriously doubt such evidence would have been persuasive to him. And yet he wants the absence of such DNA markers to overturn all other evidence that others find for concluding the text is ancient.

Unfortunately, Vogel resorts to the very kind of rhetorical tricks of which he accuses me, tying me to ?¢Ç¨?ìfundamentalist,?¢Ç¨¬ù ?¢Ç¨?ìcreationists,?¢Ç¨¬ù and other extreme, right-wing positions, which I believe he knows from our conversations and from my published work has no basis in reality. It is exactly this kind of pejorative rhetoric that I find so dispiriting. While I tried to be as dispassionate as possible in my critique of Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s position, to whatever extent he feels I was unduly or unfairly critical, I sincerely apologize. I respect his right to hold and defend his views and I personally believe him to be both sincere and caring.

Robert A. Rees
Brookdale, California
Dan Vogel Says:
January 20th, 2006 at 6:41 PM
Testimony-Ladenness of Observation

In their critiques of scientific methodology, Thomas Kuhn and postmodernists like to talk about the theory-ladenness of observation, which refers to how a theory influences not only how one gathers evidence but how one perceives it as well. The term ?¢Ç¨?ìtestimony-ladennes of observation?¢Ç¨¬ù came to mind as I read Kevin Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s essay ?¢Ç¨?ìDetermining What Is ?¢Ç¨ÀúReal?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù in the November 2005 issue. His long recounting of a chain of ?¢Ç¨?ìmeant-to-be?¢Ç¨¬ù events is mind-boggling, but it provides an example of how testimony-ladennnes shapes Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interpretations, not only of life but of evidence as well. Obviously, one can add the rhetorical flourish ?¢Ç¨?ìI am convinced that these [events] were meant to be?¢Ç¨¬ù to any story without fear of being proven wrong, because it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s untestable and unfalsifiable. This is exactly what apologists want to happen with the debate over Book of Mormon historicity. By using a series of ad hoc hypotheses, they hope–as Christensen quotes Apostle Dallin Oaks–to ?¢Ç¨?ìsettle for a draw.?¢Ç¨¬ù And that is the most that someone without compelling evidence can hope for.

Moreover, Christensen demonstrates that he has not understood my essay ?¢Ç¨?ìIs a ?¢Ç¨ÀúParadigm Shift?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ in Book of Mormon Studies Possible??¢Ç¨¬ù (March 2005) when he quotes Apostle Oaks?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s statement that ?¢Ç¨?ìsecular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the Book of Mormon. Its authenticity depends, as it says, on a witness of the Holy Spirit.?¢Ç¨¬ù Clearly, this statement attempts to resolve the question of historicity with testimony, while my essay argued that having a spiritual witness about the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìtruth?¢Ç¨¬ù does not necessarily mean that you have a testimony of its historicity. Contrary to Apostle Oaks?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assertion, the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historical claims can be tested by secular scholarship and are potentially falsifiable. For example, if one believes the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s early revelations identify Native Americans with Israelites, if one finds apologetic attempts to revision text and tradition unpersuasive, then evidence like DNA has falsified Book of Mormon historicity. Nevertheless, in light of this quote from Apostle Oaks, Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s later denial that he is not trying to corrupt the scientific method by inserting religious values into the process seems disingenuous.

Christensen misapplies a statement I made in my introduction to himself. My comment that some apologists draw on Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s critique of science as a ?¢Ç¨?ìsubjective enterprise?¢Ç¨¬ù to argue that ?¢Ç¨?ìbelieving that the Book of Mormon is historical is neither more nor less ?¢Ç¨Àúscientific?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ than not believing?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 69) was, in part, inspired by John-Charles Duffy?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of Kuhn in the same issue as Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s initial essay (see May 2004, p. 35). So, if Christensen finds the argument ?¢Ç¨?ìsilly,?¢Ç¨¬ù we agree on one thing at least.

Christensen also incorrectly personalizes my statement that ?¢Ç¨?ìno matter how many correlations one perceives in the text [of the Book of Mormon], one negative evidence cancels them all?¢Ç¨¬ù as ?¢Ç¨?ìgrounds for leaving the Church, dropping my belief in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the divinity of Jesus Christ, [and] the existence of God.?¢Ç¨¬ù While Christensen is free to make whatever personal conclusions about the implications of negative evidence, my comment was intended to be understood as an epistemological point about the nature of evidence. Assuming the negative evidence is valid, one is enough. More negative evidences might increase confidence, but it won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make a falsified theory more false. A dead theory–like a dead person–can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be made more dead. On the other hand, because apologists can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make a direct connection between the Book of Mormon and ancient America, they rely on accumulation of inferences, speculations, and indirect correlations in the hope that the total weight will somehow be greater than the sum of its parts. In such a situation, I argue that negative evidence should be more decisive than perceived correlations.

The problem, of course, lies in the disagreement over what constitutes negative evidence. This is where Christensen and other apologists want to introduce the limited geography theory, the local colonization theory, the inspired translation theory, or some other ad hoc device. And here we begin to have an answer to Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s question: ?¢Ç¨?ìWhy do things that others find devastating and shattering not bother me at all??¢Ç¨¬ù One reason Christensen is unmoved by negative evidence, he says, is that he has seen ?¢Ç¨?ìa seemingly powerful, decisive and final ?¢Ç¨Àúnegative evidence?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù become ?¢Ç¨?ìvery powerful positive evidence.?¢Ç¨¬ù Assuming this has happened in the past, it is no guarantee that it will always happen; so this is basically a statement of faith, or the fallacy of potential proof.

Christensen gives us an example of where seemingly negative evidence became positive, for him at least. Refusing to be moved by David Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1993 discussion of the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s anachronistic borrowing of material and ideas about Melchizedek from the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament (cf. Hebrews 7 and Alma 13), Christensen waited two years and found a promising answer in the speculations of Old Testament scholar Margaret Barker, who believes the ?¢Ç¨?ìMelchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s association of Melchizedek and the Messiah?¢Ç¨¬ù are based on legends that go back to the First Temple (ca. 700 B.C.). If anything, this demonstrates the casualness with which Christensen sets aside negative evidence, because postulating the existence of a mythology that possibly influenced Hebrews in some unspecified way does nothing towards replacing Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s comprehensive analysis. Responding to Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of Barker, David Wright communicated to me:

[Barker?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s] statement establishes nothing in regard to the content of traditions that may have been available to Hebrews or the early church. One cannot jump from a reasonable supposition that there are some (very undefined and perhaps very minimal) ?¢Ç¨?ìMelchizedek?¢Ç¨¬ù traditions to a notion of what the content of those traditions may have been. One cannot ?¢Ç¨?ìsubtract?¢Ç¨¬ù the OT (i.e., Gen 14 and Ps 110) motifs from Hebrews and say that the rest of the Melchizedek material in Hebrews is old. This is especially unlikely given what we know about how early Jewish (and this includes early Christian) readers of the Bible midrashically (i.e., creatively and expansively) interpreted the bare facts available only in the biblical text. For example, that Melchizedek had no parents (according to Hebrews) is based on the lack of genealogy in Genesis 14–this is interpretive, not the retention of ancient tradition. … If one cannot talk about the content of general ?¢Ç¨?ìtraditions?¢Ç¨¬ù available to Christianity, certainly one cannot talk about the content of specific texts.1

Nor does Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of Barker explain what happens in the Book of Mormon. To remove the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s borrowing from Hebrews, apparent not only in Alma 12-13 but also in Ether 12, from the list of anachronisms, Mormon apologists need to postulate the existence of a ?¢Ç¨?ìProto-Hebrews?¢Ç¨¬ù text at least 700 years before Hebrews was composed. As Wright explained in 1993:

The text would have to include at least the following: (a) Hebrews 3:7-11, a version of verse 12, plus exposition of this material from Psalm 95 highlighting the matters of heart-hardening, entering into God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rest, ?¢Ç¨?ìToday?¢Ç¨¬ù as the time of faithfulness, and provocation; (b) the essence of Hebrews 7:1-4 and a relatively extensive discussion of priesthood; (c) a version of Hebrews 9:27-28; (d) much of Hebrews 11; (e) scattered verses or parts thereof outside Hebrews 11 parallel to Ether 12 … (g) a messianic topological element. … Critical study of the biblical canon and the growth of biblical exegesis indicates that the type of text that Proto-Hebrews would have to be would be unlikely in the preexilic period.2

Quoting Barker?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s theory is hardly adequate reason to dismiss Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s specific arguments. With such grasping-for-straws methodology, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s no mystery why Christensen remains unmoved by negative evidence. Christensen acknowledges that there is a point at which resisting negative evidence becomes unreasonable, but this acknowledgment seems meaningless in light of his method of privileging weak positive evidence over more comprehensive negative evidence, inventing incoherent ad hoc rationalizations, and believing that testimony trumps all negative evidence.

Christensen attempts to distract the discussion from negative evidence to perceived mistakes some critics make, apparently to say that the critics can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be trusted because they are not always right. As an example, he refers to a footnote in my essay on the Book of Mormon witnesses in American Apocrypha, which mentions an 1857 letter that, as Christensen represents, ?¢Ç¨?ìcontains a second-hand report of a rumor to the effect that Joseph Smith learned hypnotism ?¢Ç¨Àúfrom a German peddler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 67). Christensen suggests that my valuing of this historically weak source occurred because of the ?¢Ç¨?ìdemands of his hypothesis?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 68). Without sounding overly defensive or implying my work is flawless, Christensen has misconstrued my reason for quoting the source. Not only did I quote the source without comment, but I quoted it in conjunction with George W. Schweich?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1899 comment that his grandfather David Whitmer?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s vision of the angel and plates was either real or hypnotism. The context of my use of these two sources clearly show that my intent was not to ?¢Ç¨?ìsupport [my] hypothesis about Smith being a skilled hypnotist?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 68), as Christensen asserts, but rather to show that the possibility that Smith used something like hypnotism had been brought up as early as 1899 (and perhaps earlier) and that ?¢Ç¨?ìthis possibility has never been adequately explored, let alone refuted.?¢Ç¨¬ù3 Not surprisingly, the lens through which Christensen magnifies weak evidence into strong, also allows him to exaggerate the faults he perceives in counter-apologetic writings. Regardless, dwelling on a ?¢Ç¨?ìhuman mistake?¢Ç¨¬ù in a footnote and ignoring the major evidence and arguments is a fallacy of distraction called quibbling.

Christensen disputes my description that Kuhn believed that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe historical progress of science is best understood as punctuated by mass conversions to new understandings, sudden ?¢Ç¨Àúparadigm shifts?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 69). According to Christensen, ?¢Ç¨?ìWhat Kuhn describes as a paradigm shift takes time and involves overcoming resistance for both individuals and paradigm communities?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 68). This might be true of the period leading up to paradigm shift, but not paradigm shift itself. Speaking of paradigm shift for individuals, Kuhn said: ?¢Ç¨?ìThe transition between competing paradigms cannot be made a step at a time, forced by logic and neutral experience. Like the gestalt switch, it must occur all at one (though not necessarily in an instant) or not at all.?¢Ç¨¬ù4 Regarding the scientific community, my description of scientific revolutions as ?¢Ç¨?ìsudden … mass conversions?¢Ç¨¬ù is meant to be understood in the relative terms of historical time–long periods of ?¢Ç¨?ìnormal science?¢Ç¨¬ù punctuated by relatively brief periods of revolutionary paradigm shifts, like what happened with the Copernican and Einsteinian Repositions.

Christensen complains that I engage in ?¢Ç¨?ìrhetorical sleight of hand?¢Ç¨¬ù when I describe the weak and contradictory parts of Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s philosophy. Christensen says, ?¢Ç¨?ìOnly if my use corresponded to the hypothetical irresponsible Kuhn could the criticism apply?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 68). However, my critique of Kuhn stands alone and appears a page and a half before Christensen is even mentioned. The first part of my essay deals in general terms with Kuhn and those who misuse him to attack science as a means of supporting weak theories. The wording of his denial is an admission that his use of Kuhn is selective, and therefore it is out of context and unrepresentative of Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s complete thought. Indeed, as I argued, Kuhn himself would have objected to how his thesis is being used to support unscientific viewpoints.

Christensen denies that he uses the three step ?¢Ç¨?ìfallacy from Kuhn?¢Ç¨¬ù common among some Creationists, which I did not apply specifically to him. Nevertheless, the fact remains that he and other apologists appeal to Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s critique of science as a means of weakening the significance of negative evidence by creating a different paradigm, which blends scientific and scholarly inquiry with religious values and introduces ad hoc rationalizations that make sense only to those who inhabit that paradigm. Christensen has argued, ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd in Book of Mormon studies, Hugh Nibley?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s efforts for the Near Eastern side and John Sorenson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s efforts for the Mesoamerican side have defined paradigms for the most significant groups of believing researchers today.?¢Ç¨¬ù5 I have argued that the introduction of such apologetic devises are not true paradigm shifts, but rather are ad hoc hypotheses designed to protect the old paradigm (Book of Mormon historicity) from demise. Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of Kuhn in this effort places his writings firmly in the same genre as the Creationists.

Christensen implies that my critique of Brant Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s approach misrepresents his position, but Gardner himself says that his method entails ?¢Ç¨?ìlooking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.?¢Ç¨¬ù Christensen praises Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s approach because it ?¢Ç¨?ìre-defines the problem field, method, and standard of solution?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 69). Indeed it does. As I argued in my essay, by using this method ?¢Ç¨?ìhistorical anachronisms become invisible to researchers and falsification becomes impossible?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 71). In response, Christensen quotes another completely unrelated statement from Gardner where he discusses anachronisms to show that ?¢Ç¨?ìGardner openly notices and discusses potential ?¢Ç¨Àúhistorical anachronisms,?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ demonstrating that Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s charge that such things ?¢Ç¨Àúbecome invisible?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ is false?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 69). But Gardner is no longer applying the approach he described in the previous statement; so, while it might be fair to say Gardner has more than one approach, the second statement is irrelevant to an assessment of the first. Using Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s first methodology of looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, one would skip over anachronisms like steel swords or horses. The only time they would come into play is when one looks for the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. When Gardner momentarily slips out of his new methodology and notices anachronisms, he quickly jumps back to his Mesoamerica-in-the-Book-of-Mormon approach, calls them ?¢Ç¨?ìlabeling problems?¢Ç¨¬ù (meaning a horse is really a deer or tapir), and the anachronisms disappear. Despite Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claim, Gardner is not ?¢Ç¨?ìputting the text at risk via his methods.?¢Ç¨¬ù The whole reason for switching to the new method was because, as Gardner stated, there was a ?¢Ç¨?ìhuge difference?¢Ç¨¬ù in ?¢Ç¨?ìthe quality of the correlations.?¢Ç¨¬ù It is also much easier to manipulate the text, especially if one believes, as Christensen does, that there is an ?¢Ç¨?ìuncertain relationship between the signs of language and the signified beyond language?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 66). This belief not only allows Gardner and Christensen to see Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, but also to rewrite the text to conform to their testimony-laden assumptions.

Christensen describes the ?¢Ç¨?ìimpasse?¢Ç¨¬ù between our views as a simple matter of reading the Book of Mormon with different eyes. ?¢Ç¨?ìI read with different contexts, different perspectives–and I come to different valuations,?¢Ç¨¬ù he argues (p. 69). These ?¢Ç¨?ìdifferent contexts?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìperspectives?¢Ç¨¬ù are nothing more than apologetic ad hoc theories, and his ?¢Ç¨?ìvaluations?¢Ç¨¬ù are determined by their effectiveness in overcoming problems. Then, back to his relativistic postmodern views, he states: ?¢Ç¨?ìI do not say that my readings are the only ones possible, but I strive to show that they are plausible and, from my perspective, better and more promising?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 69). It is not a simple matter of arbitrarily choosing among several plausible readings of a text. Sometimes apologists confuse readings which make the text more historically plausible with readings that are plausible. The number of plausible readings is constrained by the text itself, and in this instance the hemispheric reading is more plausible and less textually problematic than the limited geographic theory.

Christensen denies that he believes ?¢Ç¨?ìKuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s thesis gives Mormon scholars permission to corrupt the scientific method with religious values?¢Ç¨¬ù and complains that I did not quote him on this charge (p. 69). However, this charge rests more on the implications of his methodology, rather than on an explicit statement. Nevertheless, in a footnote, I quoted his 1995 statement that Ian Barbour?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s work ?¢Ç¨?ìsupplies the theoretical justification that I use to apply Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s model [of science] to religion?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 74 n. 16). In the same essay, he admitted that the apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ paradigm includes other ?¢Ç¨?ìpreferred, even useful and possibly true, assumptions,?¢Ç¨¬ù and advised fellow believers, ?¢Ç¨?ìWe do not need to retreat from our preferred assumptions when doing our research, or living our lives, or in communicating with audiences that share those assumptions.?¢Ç¨¬ù6 Christensen also describes how those extra-scientific assumptions helps to overcome counter-evidence:

When confronted by different conclusions … the best way to get perspective is to start asking all the questions that apply to a paradigm debate. Rather than focusing on a single problem … ask, Which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved? The Book of Mormon itself claims that the key problem to have solved is testimony.7

Christensen gives an example of how his testimony-laden observation resolves counter-evidence. Responding to Stan Larson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s research showing Joseph Smith ?¢Ç¨?ìcopied the KJV blindly, not showing awareness of translation problems and errors in the KJV,?¢Ç¨¬ù Christensen objects that no one knows what inspired translation entails.8 Evidently, for Christensen, being able to translate under inspiration is not only different than normal translation, but less reliable and in some undefinable way potentially able to explain away all anachronisms and KJV-dependent errors. Besides committing the fallacy of possible proof, it is a faith-based ad hoc rationalization that has no place in scholarly discourse.

In the last section, Christensen tells us why he resists a paradigm shift to an inspired fiction model for the Book of Mormon. He fears that life would become ordinary and lose the magic and mystery to which he has become accustomed. His criticism of those who have made the shift as prideful in their ability to ?¢Ç¨?ìface the abyss without flinching,?¢Ç¨¬ù tells us all we need to know about what lies behind his resistence. All of which is quite ironic given his allusion to Buddhist symbolism: ?¢Ç¨?ìTo enter into the Real, we have to be willing to leave what we think and what we want, what we fear, and what we desire.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Dan Vogel
Westerville, Ohio

NOTES

1. David Wright to Dan Vogel, 12 Jan. 2006.

2. David Wright, ?¢Ç¨?ì?¢Ç¨ÀúIn Plain Terms That We May Understand?¢Ç¨Ñ¢: Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Transformation of Hebrews in Alma 12-13,?¢Ç¨¬ù in Brent Lee Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 204-5.

3. Dan Vogel, ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Validity of the Witnesses?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ Testimonies,?¢Ç¨¬ù in Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe, eds., American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 91, and 115 n. 60.

4. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 150.

5. Kevin Christensen, ?¢Ç¨?ìParadigms Crossed,?¢Ç¨¬ù Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7/2 (1995): 150.

6. Ibid., 160.

7. Ibid., 172.

8. Ibid., 157-59. See Stan Larson, ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Historicity of the Matthean Sermon on the Mount in 3 Nephi,?¢Ç¨¬ù in Brent D. Metcalfe, ed., New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 115-63.
Brant Gardner Says:
January 29th, 2006 at 5:21 PM
It is fascinating how different a method can look when explained by someone who is clearly unfamiliar with it. I will attempt a reply to Vogel’s representation of the way I have approached the Book of Mormon.

What does it mean to look for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon? It means that any text written in a particular time ought to show evidence of the time and culture in which it was created. If the Book of Mormon were created during the years it says it was and if the Mesoamerican location were the real background, then that cultural background should leave its traces in the text and should do so in ways authentic to historical texts.

This is, using a different comparative base, the same method Vogel suggests for his examination of the Book of Mormon. The difference is that he compares the text to New York frontier culture during Joseph’s time. It is ironic that Vogel would be so adamant that my method must be incorrect when it is so similar to his own. I suspect that he doesn’t feel that way about his work.

The second question is the issue of anachronisms. Again, what I have said about them becomes something quite different in Vogel’s retelling. I have looked at all of them and analyzed the contexts in which they appear. Most of them are anachronous words that do not clearly have any supporting descriptive actions that allow us to be sure that the word represents what we think it does. Since the Book of Mormon claims to be a translation and since it is well known that a translation can insert anachronous words (such as “candle” in the KJV NT) then we cannot make any decisions based on those anachronisms alone. Until other data tell us how to read the text, they are simply anomalous data that must wait for resolution. That is a long way from ignoring them. It isn’t unusual for any scientific investigation to have anomalous data. At some point they must be accounted for and the strongest theory will account for the anomalies without damage to the larger data set. In the case of the labeling anachronisms, it is the larger data set that will tell us how to understand the words that appear to be anachronous.

Concerning Vogel’s assertion that my approach doesn’t allow for falsification, I can’t imagine how that could be correct. If is text doesn’t fit a historical time and place – particularly when the target covers such a long time – one discovers issues rather quickly. This is particularly true if the underlying motivations and culture being described differ from that of the time period of discovery/translation. Apart from the possible translation anachronisms, there are ample cases where motivations, descriptions and assumptions would be anachronistic that would rapidly falsify the hypothesis. In the case of the Book of Mormon there are complex relationships between culture areas, peoples, languages and times that must all fit with know geography, topography, linguistics and time periods. There are a number of descriptions of economic and political developments that should reflect conditions at the historical time, if it is an ancient document.

Any of those issues are much more damaging to a hypothesis of antiquity that the potential mislabeling through translation.
dennis potter Says:
February 12th, 2006 at 6:03 PM
The discussion of the historicity of the Book of Mormon assumes that there can be a homgeneous account of the meaning of the term “historicity”. I assert that this cannot be the case. What is “historically true” depends on what “really” happened in the past. But the concept of reality is adjudicated differently from within the confines of different linguistic frameworks and practices. For example, mathematics adjucicates the reality of numbers differently than physics does the reality of quarks. So, prior to all of the above discussion we should have a discussion of the usage of concepts such as “reality” and “historical” from within the Mormon context. I think that you find that the average Mormon (non-apologists) do not care about DNA evidence. This entails that for them it has nothing to do with the historicity of the Book of Mormon in their linguistic framework. It follows that their claim that the book of Mormon if historical is logically very different from the anthropologists’ claim that the inhabitants of this continent are not from the middle east (for example). The apparently competing claims are not really comparable since they have different standards of evidence. This said, we must recognize an important implication: saying that the native americans are lamanites is a different kind of claim. It is a political claim. It is a claim about what their status is with respect to the gospel. With a properly political reading of the Book of Mormon we will find that this means that there is more hope for them than for us. We’re the Nephites and “we” were destroyed.
J.B. Herrick Says:
February 15th, 2006 at 3:57 PM
The podcast, “SunstonePodcast 002: The Mormon Struggle with Assimilation, An Interview with Armand Mauss” has a broken link.
admin Says:
February 15th, 2006 at 4:26 PM
It’s fixed now. Thanks!
Gordon Hill Says:
February 17th, 2006 at 5:14 PM
Wow! Dennis Potter has really been drinking the purple cool aid!
Dennis, You forgot that science is still evolving, first archeology disproved the B of M, and then DNA evidence etc. etc.
In the future science will develop new tools and insights to help people ferret out the skunk in the wood pile.
In the end it won’t matter because many Mormons have shown that no amount of evidence will turn them away from their childhood faith. Faith based people have always disdained reason while those of us who cherish both reason ( reality based )and faith sit back in amazment as we watch the faith based folk fighting over who can drink the most purple Kool-aid.

Gordon Hill
Dan Vogel Says:
February 24th, 2006 at 5:26 PM
Continuing Dialogue Between Robert Rees and Dan Vogel

RR: In his recent response to my letter to the editor regarding his Sunstone article (?¢Ç¨?ìSame Old, Same Old,?¢Ç¨¬ù September 2005), Dan Vogel accuses me of reiterating ?¢Ç¨?ìthe apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ position without responding to the main issues raised by [his] essay.?¢Ç¨¬ù He is right that I did not directly address his argument about certain apologist scholars?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ misappropriation of Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s philosophical position regarding paradigms, but that was not my purpose.

DV: So, if you didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want to contribute to the main theme of my essay, what was your purpose?

RR: Rather, the thrust of my argument was that I felt Vogel was being either na?É¬Øve or disingenuous in offering a paradigmatic option (that believing Mormons should accept the Book of Mormon as non-historical but nevertheless ?¢Ç¨?ìinspired?¢Ç¨¬ù) that most Mormons, scholars and lay members alike, would not consider a choice at all.

DV: You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re probably right about most Mormons, although I find it odd that you want to speak for them. I understand that you do not consider the inspired fiction theory an option, but no one knows for sure what the average Mormon, or even a significant minority, would do once they have been informed of the issues. However, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m less concerned about how many Mormons would accept a non-historical but inspired Book of Mormon, than that some be allowed to hold that position openly without fear of punishment or intimidation. Since testimony pertains to the truthfulness of the book, not historicity, skepticism should be permitted and not considered a heresy.

RR: I accused Vogel of being disingenuous because I felt he was using ?¢Ç¨?ìprophet?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìinspired?¢Ç¨¬ù in ways that he knew contradicted the typical Mormon understanding of these words. For example, Vogel cites Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s response to the question as to whether he considered himself to be a prophet?¢Ç¨Äù?¢Ç¨?ìYes, and every other man who has the testimony of Jesus?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äùto suggest that Joseph considered himself a prophet only in the loosest sense of that word.

DV: True, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m less concerned about the ?¢Ç¨?ìtypical Mormon?¢Ç¨¬ù definitions of ?¢Ç¨?ìprophet?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìinspiration,?¢Ç¨¬ù than with Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s. Rees objects to my quoting Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s definition of ?¢Ç¨?ìprophet?¢Ç¨¬ù–that the ?¢Ç¨?ìtestimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy?¢Ç¨¬ù (Rev. 19:10)–?¢Ç¨?ìto suggest that Joseph considered himself a prophet only in the loosest sense of that word.?¢Ç¨¬ù Whether or not it meats expectations, this was Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s definition, which he repeatedly gave. In January 1843, he repeated the definition and explained: ?¢Ç¨?ìI did not profess to be a prophet any more than every man ought to who professes to be a preacher of righteousness?¢Ç¨¬ù (DHC 5:231-32). I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think Joseph Smith thought his definition was ?¢Ç¨?ìloose?¢Ç¨¬ù since he was using it to distinguish himself from the hireling priests. It is also important to note that I did not introduce Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s definition of ?¢Ç¨?ìprophet?¢Ç¨¬ù as proof that he was only a prophet in that sense, as Rees implies; but rather to explain that despite his use of deception, he could still consider himself a prophet by his own definition.

The same is true with regard to the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìinspired?¢Ç¨¬ù status. If one concludes that Joseph Smith knew the Book of Mormon had not come from anciently engraved gold plates, did Joseph Smith still consider the Book of Mormon ?¢Ç¨?ìinspired?¢Ç¨¬ù? The Book of Mormon itself says, yes. ?¢Ç¨?ìWherefore every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. … For every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ?¢Ç¨¬ù (Moroni 7:13, 16).

RR: But Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s own extensive research and writing on Joseph Smith shows that Joseph considered his prophetic powers and calling anything but ordinary (like ?¢Ç¨?ìevery other man?¢Ç¨¬ù). As Richard Bushman reveals in his new biography of Joseph Smith (Joseph Smith: Rough Rolling Stone, when Joseph declared boldly in 1831, ?¢Ç¨?ìI am Joseph the Prophet,?¢Ç¨¬ù ?¢Ç¨?ìit was a startling claim for an unprepossing young man of twenty-five.?¢Ç¨¬ù

DV: To quote Joseph Smith calling himself ?¢Ç¨?ìJoseph the Prophet?¢Ç¨¬ù begs the question since what is meant by prophet should be understood by his own definition, not what he ?¢Ç¨?ìled followers to believe?¢Ç¨¬ù about angels and gold plates. Many Old Testament prophets did little more than to write inspired poems. Does a prophet have to do the things Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet?

RR: Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument that Joseph ?¢Ç¨?ìsincerely believed himself to be an inspired prophet?¢Ç¨Äùbut not in the way he encouraged his followers to believe,?¢Ç¨¬ù is not supported by any evidence other than what I consider Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s misappropriation of Alma 6:8.

DV: Huh? I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t believe I made this argument. Again, this statement arises out of the Book-of-Mormon-is-not-history paradigm. If the Book of Mormon is not history and the story of the angel and the plates is fiction, then he was a prophet in a difference sense than he led his followers to believe. This is the paradigm shift that I was describing.

RR: What Vogel seems not to understand, but which is apparent to anyone who attends a typical (and they are all typical!) Latter-day Saint sacrament meeting, is that the average Mormon is bound to his or her religious beliefs (including the First Vision and the Book of Mormon), not by logic or history but rather, to use Robert Frost?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s line, ?¢Ç¨?ìby countless silken ties of love and thought.?¢Ç¨¬ù These ties include such things as church service, the bearing of testimonies, temple attendance, hymn singing, scripture study, and fellowship, to name only a few. For better or worse, most Mormons don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t bother themselves about such things as scholarly debates, scientific discoveries, or, perhaps most lamentably, their own history. The social-religious system of the Mormon Church is conservative, hierarchical, and somewhat insular. Thus, the paradigm that Vogel suggests, even if it were based on irrefutable science and scholarship (which it is not), would not be seriously considered by most Mormons. Therefore, if Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s proposal is not disingenuous, it is certainly na?É¬Øve, no matter how sincerely offered.

DV: I certainly prefer naivete to disingenuous, but only time will tell how naive I am. Nevertheless, the merits of my argument should not rest on how many LDS embrace it.

RR: Vogel accuses me of accusing him of being ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow-minded.?¢Ç¨¬ù I did not make such an accusation in my letter, nor would I use such a term in regard to him. I do believe from his writing and from conversations we have had that Vogel has a limited scope as to what he considers acceptable evidence. Clearly he puts more stock in certain empirical rather than non-empirical data.

DV: A distinction with very little difference, but nevertheless an attempt to cloud historical issues with testimony while at the same time labeling anyone who doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t accept your ?¢Ç¨?ìnon-empirical evidence?¢Ç¨¬ù (testimony) as using a ?¢Ç¨?ìlimited scope?¢Ç¨¬ù (i.e., ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow-minded?¢Ç¨¬ù).

RR: But it is more complicated than that. In the introduction to his biography of Joseph Smith, Vogel admits his bias toward empirical data but also reveals that he employs a more complex epistemological approach. What I consider ironic is, on the one hand, Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rejection of all supernatural evidence for the Restoration (Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s visions, the visions and manifestations of Joseph?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s family and associates, the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, etc.) and, on the other, his acceptance of what many consider wildly psychobiographical speculation.

DV: This is nothing more than an ad hominem (circumstantial), or an attempt to appeal to an opponents personal circumstances as a means of coercing him/her to accept a particular proposition without defending the merits of one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s own argument.

Nevertheless, the analogy between supernaturalism and psychology is rather weak. If the ?¢Ç¨?ìmany?¢Ç¨¬ù Rees refers to are anything like the brothers Hedges, they assume the term ?¢Ç¨?ìpsychobiography?¢Ç¨¬ù refers to the use of Freudian psychoanalysis, which my biography does not use (see my response at SignatureBooks.com). Instead my approach is ?¢Ç¨?ìinformed by?¢Ç¨¬ù family systems theory, which is less concerned with psychodynamics than family dynamics. Using my reconstruction of Smith family dynamics, which is not psychoanalytic but behavior oriented, I look for possible insights in the Book of Mormon. As a literary critic, Rees should be familiar with the historical-biographical method of literary analysis, which are not offered as ?¢Ç¨?ìproof?¢Ç¨¬ù but as plausible meanings of texts based on certain assumptions. While this can be subjective, it in no way equates with supernaturalism. Does he know of any literary critics who use prayer, testimony, or the supernatural?

RR: What Vogel seems not to recognize is that his seeing the Book of Mormon narrative through the prism of the Smith family dynamics is at least as subjective and speculative as the arguments he dismisses from those who see the book as being an authentic, divinely inspired, angelically delivered text. In other words, to me, seeing Smith family ghosts in the Book of Mormon narrative does not differ all that much from seeing angels in Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s bedroom. Neither can be empirically proven. I see Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s imposing the Smith family dynamics on the Book of Mormon narrative as a procrustean bed of analysis. At the very least it is a highly imaginative reading of the text.

DV: Absurd! There is no way that the historical-biographical method is on the same plane as claims of seeing visions of angels. Nevertheless, Rees fails to realize that I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not offering my analysis as evidence of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s authorship, whereas the apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ parallels are being offered as such. I have conclude the Book of Mormon is not history based on the lack of evidence and various historical anachronisms, and I have rejected Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s story of the angel and the plates based on the same kind of evidence. I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t simply dismissed Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims to visions, but I have offered reasons why his stories are not credible.

True, interpretations of texts cannot be ?¢Ç¨?ìempirically proven?¢Ç¨¬ù in any case, but Book of Mormon historicity potentially can. If the Book of Mormon is proven to be historical, then Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims about angel visitations become credible. However, the intent of my essay was to encourage apologists not to brush negative evidence aside with their ad hoc devices, but to redefine ?¢Ç¨?ìprophet?¢Ç¨¬ù and ?¢Ç¨?ìinspiration?¢Ç¨¬ù based on a non-historical Book of Mormon. It was not my purpose to rehash the pro and con of Book of Mormon historicity, but Rees can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to get out of that rut and, at least momentarily, consider other possibilities. Of course, there are many ways of looking at a text and every method of interpretation, every tool of scholarship, has its limitations and drawbacks, but what other choice do you have?

RR: Vogel calls my challenge to naturalist critics to explain how the Book of Mormon could be a product of nineteenth century culture ?¢Ç¨?ìnothing but a red herring?¢Ç¨¬ù that ?¢Ç¨?ìhas no probative value in determining whether or not the Book of Mormon is historical,?¢Ç¨¬ù but I contend that it is at least as legitimate a challenge as those presented by naturalist critics.

DV: Suppose critics can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t explain exactly how Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, does it prove it is an ancient book. No. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s an attempt to shift the burden of proof from those who assert the positive to those who are skeptical of the claim.

RR: Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument that ?¢Ç¨?ìthere is simply no direct evidence linking the book of Mormon to ancient America?¢Ç¨¬ù and that ?¢Ç¨?ìthe apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ case rests on isolated parallels and wishful thinking,?¢Ç¨¬ù does not accommodate what for many constitute serious evidence of ancient elements, elements that cannot be explained from Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s information or cultural environment. If these cannot be demonstrated as coming from Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s mind or found in nineteenth century America (as some persuasively argue), then it is legitimate to suggest they came from outside that environment?¢Ç¨Äùand to challenge those who are convinced that it did come from within that environment to demonstrate exactly (or even approximately) how they did so.

DV: This is another argument from ignorance. All it means is you can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t find a nineteenth-century antecedent. Nothing more. It also begs the question since it requires the critic to accept the legitimacy of the apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ evidence for ancient origins. But here Rees has missed the purpose of the discussion between me and Christensen, which is the tendency of the apologists to use ancient parallels to discount historical and literary anachronisms and other negative evidence.

RR: Vogel is right to say that there is no such thing as a neutral position, but I was not presenting myself as neutral?¢Ç¨Äùonly as someone who is concerned that the polar shouting I experience on both sides of the divide doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to lead to anything constructive.

DV: Yet, when I try to present the Book of Mormon as non-historical in a way that preserves it as a sacred, perhaps inspired text, you call me disingenuous.

RR: I confess that I am not completely objective or dispassionate. However, trying to be as intellectually and as spiritually honest as I can, I thoughtfully consider both the legitimacy of intellectual challenges to my faith and the validity of spiritual experiences of my faith. As I have tried to make clear, I cannot seem to escape the tension between the two kinds of experiences, particularly because I see both as having strengths and weaknesses?¢Ç¨Äùthat is, one can be as deceived by too great a reliance on reason as by too great a reliance on spiritual or spectral evidence.

DV: I have no problem with this statement, generally, if one acknowledges that testimony of the Book of Mormon pertains to its spiritual truth and not to its historical truth. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not a matter of balance, but of ?¢Ç¨?ìmagisteria?¢Ç¨¬ù as you have noted.

RR: While it is true, as Vogel contends, that the term ?¢Ç¨?ìnaturalist?¢Ç¨¬ù does not ?¢Ç¨?ìdescribe all those who question Book of Mormon historicity,?¢Ç¨¬ù it does seem an accurate appellation for Vogel himself, who seems to eschew all non-naturalistic phenomena or explanations (again except for the speculative biographical data mentioned above).

DV: My comment came in response to Rees?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ad hominem that my conclusion about the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historicity is dictated by my commitment to naturalism, which is fallacious and irrelevant. This is evident from the fact that I was basically arguing a similar position given by some believing Mormons, not to mention that multitude of supernaturalists of other faiths who also offer naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon. We need to stick with evidence and arguments.

RR: He must be aware that modern neuroscience sees a much more complex view of reality. As Joseph Chilton Pearce and Michael Mendizza state, ?¢Ç¨?ìPerception, awareness, what we call reality is an ever-changing blend of multiple data streams?¢Ç¨Äùexternal, internal, past, imagined, and intuitive?¢Ç¨Äùsimultaneously displayed in consciousness.?¢Ç¨¬ù

DV: I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not sure this information is relevant to the subject at hand, other than perhaps to muddle the reader?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s brain and thought processes and circumvent the need for evidence in deciding the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historical status.

RR: Most Latter-day Saints give primacy to their felt experience with the Book of Mormon, and the breadth and depth of such experience is more persuasive to them than such things as the absence of Semitic DNA markers among Native American lineages.

DV: As I said, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have a problem with anyone having a ?¢Ç¨?ìfelt experience?¢Ç¨¬ù with the Book of Mormon, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s the interpretation of that experience that I question. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s possible to misinterpret ?¢Ç¨?ìspiritual experiences?¢Ç¨¬ù with cultural expectations and assumptions just as we do other ?¢Ç¨?ìfelt experiences.?¢Ç¨¬ù It is the clouding of the issues that concerns me.

RR: In other words, the spiritual logic of their encounter with the book trumps other kinds of logic. So, even if Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument were iron-clad (which I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t believe it is), it would make little difference to the majority of Latter-day Saints. That may be lamentable, but it is no less a reality. This is why I consider his hope for a paradigm shift unrealistic.

DV: Given what Rees said above, that ?¢Ç¨?ìreality?¢Ç¨¬ù is ?¢Ç¨?ìan ever-changing blend of multiple data streams?¢Ç¨Äùexternal, internal, past, imagined, and intuitive?¢Ç¨Äùsimultaneously displayed in consciousness,?¢Ç¨¬ù I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not sure how much authority his description of it has. He might be right, but he might be wrong. Only time can tell. But what does that have to do with the merits of my discussion?

RR: Vogel tries to turn the tables on me by saying that my use of Stephen J. Gould?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s idea of non-overlapping-magisteria makes his case, but he obscures Gould?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s point, which is not that bad or pseudo-science has any validity but that the realms of scientific inquiry and religious experience have separate domains and that it is illegitimate to judge either by the standards of the other.

DV: Not quite. He wanted religion to stay out of science, and science to stay out of theology. He wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t supporting a postmodernist view of reality as you seem to imply.

RR: Thus, believers must regard the findings of science as significant (if not always conclusive) and non-believers must respect the experience of faith (even if not persuaded by it). These are, as Gould argues, non-overlapping (i.e., entirely separate epistemological) realms. This is significant in relation to some naturalists and to some apologists who keep judging each another by the wrong criteria.

DV: The ?¢Ç¨?ìexperience of faith?¢Ç¨¬ù is not ?¢Ç¨?ìepistemological.?¢Ç¨¬ù When determining the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historical status, there should be only one set of criteria–and faith, religion, and ?¢Ç¨?ìfelt experience?¢Ç¨¬ù have nothing to do with it. That is the point I hope you will get.

RR: I have tried to make my own position clear: As a scholar and a believer, I value both magesteria; in fact, I have spent my professional and personal life trying to foster respectful dialogue between the two.

DV: In determining historicity, there doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t need to be dialogue between the two magesteria. Should it be determined the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then faith will have to adapt just as it has in so many other situations, at least, for the most part. One can resist, as in the case with Creation science or intelligent design theory, or decide that it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s really not that threatening to faith.

RR: As a scholar I have tried to use the best critical skills of my particular profession (literary history and textual analysis) in coming to terms with the text of the Book of Mormon. In doing so, I am persuaded that it is an amazingly complex, sophisticated, and, at times, profound text.

DV: None of which proves it is ancient. All these elements appear in Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s revelations as well as in some of his sermons and letters (particularly those that are now D&C 121-23).

RR: As objectively as I able to weigh the evidence, I am persuaded that it is highly unlikely a product of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s or one of his contemporaries?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ mind and imagination. Nevertheless, I remain open to the possibility that it might be.

DV: This is a highly subjective assessment–far more than my speculations about family dynamics. You simply do not know what Joseph Smith was capable of doing. No one–not even a professor of literary history and textual analysis–can answer that question.

RR: As I have said elsewhere, if someone were to discover a proto-manuscript of the Book of Mormon, say written in 1795, I would have to revise my thinking.

DV: This is simply silly, especially in view of your claim that I have ?¢Ç¨?ìa limited scope as to what he considers acceptable evidence.?¢Ç¨¬ù

RR: The question I put seriously to Vogel is whether if it had been shown that there was DNA evidence of Semitic bloodlines among indigenous American populations that would have convinced him that the Book of Mormon was what it claims to be. From all he has said and written on this subject, I seriously doubt such evidence would have been persuasive to him.

DV: Of course not. Because the evidence isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t specific to the Book of Mormon. There is such a thing as having the right answer for the wrong reason. One of the most popular theories among Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s contemporaries was that Native Americans originated from the lost ten tribes. But there is no evidence, genetic or otherwise, for a Hebrew presence in the Americas, although Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s contemporaries thought they had a lot of proof.

RR: And yet he wants the absence of such DNA markers to overturn all other evidence that others find for concluding the text is ancient.

DV: Disconfirming evidence has more probative value than perceived correlations, because correlation does not prove derivation. Presently, Book of Mormon historicity is precariously propped up by the limited geography, local colonization, inspired-but-faulty translation theories, which are far more speculative than my family dynamics theory. However, the case for the nineteenth-century origin of the Book of Mormon doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t rest on that kind of analysis, whereas Book of Mormon historicity does. Once these devices go, whatever ancient parallels the apologists thought they could see in the text can be dismissed as coincidence and apologetic ingenuity.

RR: Unfortunately, Vogel resorts to the very kind of rhetorical tricks of which he accuses me, tying me to ?¢Ç¨?ìfundamentalist,?¢Ç¨¬ù ?¢Ç¨?ìcreationists,?¢Ç¨¬ù and other extreme, right-wing positions, which I believe he knows from our conversations and from my published work has no basis in reality.

DV: True, I repeatedly asked what difference there was between Rees?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rhetoric and that of Christian fundamentalists and Creationists who also think scientists have ?¢Ç¨?ìa limited scope as to what [they] considers acceptable evidence.?¢Ç¨¬ù

RR: It is exactly this kind of pejorative rhetoric that I find so dispiriting. While I tried to be as dispassionate as possible in my critique of Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s position, to whatever extent he feels I was unduly or unfairly critical, I sincerely apologize. I respect his right to hold and defend his views and I personally believe him to be both sincere and caring.

DV: No apology is necessary. I wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t offended. Nor did I intend to offend, but to make what I sincerely believed to be a legitimate point.
Timothy A. Griffy Says:
February 26th, 2006 at 5:33 PM
A Defense of My Faith

For more than a year, I have been reading with interest the debates carried out in Sunstone over the authorship of the Book of Mormon. The focus of these debates has been over recent DNA studies and their bearing on Book of Mormon historicity. Alongside this debate on this so-called Galileo event1 is the question posed by Dan Vogel, ?¢Ç¨?ìIs a ?¢Ç¨ÀúParadigm Shift?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ in Book of Mormon Studies Possible??¢Ç¨¬ù2 In part, Vogel was responding to Kevin Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s work applying paradigm shifts in science to the authorship debate.3 This article has generated its own share of responses.

Initially, I read Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s corpus and took my cue from him. I felt he had made some valid points,4 and wrote an essay synthesizing the environmentalist paradigm which may yet see the light of publication.5 But as the debate progressed, I became increasingly uneasy with the responses and felt an entirely different type of essay would have more value. So instead of a scholarly essay, I offer my personal reflections on this issue.

I begin by affirming as clearly as possible my beliefs about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is truly the word of God, and Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God. Beyond that, nothing else matters. The issues of authorship and dating for this scripture are relevant only for interpreting the work. If an unambiguous statement from Joseph Smith stating he wrote the Book of Mormon from whole cloth were found tomorrow, it would not affect my faith. Likewise, if a proverbial ?¢Ç¨?ìWelcome to Zarahemla?¢Ç¨¬ù sign were found, it would not affect my faith.

Having said that, I also affirm that Joseph Smith is the human author of the Book of Mormon, which can be dated no earlier than the mid-1820s. I make this assertion strictly from my opinion of the available evidence, made after examining the issue as carefully and prayerfully as I am able. This opinion is subject to change pending new evidence, but for now, I do not foresee this happening.

I also firmly reject any contention that if Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, then he is a fraud. Whether Joseph was the author or the translator, the Book of Mormon remains my primary evidence that God called him to be a prophet. The amount, if any, of conscious deception in producing the work is simply irrelevant from my viewpoint as a believer. Joseph was doing God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s work, and that is all that matters to me.

I have already outlined my spiritual journey in a letter published by Sunstone.6 My journey into Mormonism began when I was an Evangelical with decidedly anti-Mormon views. This included a belief in the plenary inspiration of the Bible, resulting in a work that was completely inerrant. My study of the Bible showed me otherwise, and that led to a crisis of faith. Told the Bible was either inerrant or worthless, I found myself torn because it was speaking to me with power although I had to conclude it was hardly inerrant. I resolved that issue, and in turn looked at Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon in a new light. A good seed, now planted in good soil, began to sprout (see Alma 32:28ff.).

Thus, when I say that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, I mean inspired by God. I am hardly a disaffected Mormon. My testimony came from hard work and with no small amount of personal tribulation. Since the time Sunstone published my letter, my testimony about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon has only grown. I can say with confidence that I would be willing to match the strength of my testimony against anyone seeking to defend the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

If I judge correctly from various historicist responses, my belief regarding Book of Mormon authorship is irreconcilable with my belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet. First, I think it well to remember many possible solutions to reconcile the problem are available. These possibilities include the following: Joseph as pious fraud,7 automatic writer,8 mystic,9 shamanic negotiator of the collective unconscious,10 and pseudipigraphic writer.11 All these ideas have merits worth considering for those having problems with a historical Book of Mormon.

More important, I think many defenders of Book of Mormon historicity have staked their claim to this scripture?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s authority on issues that can and should be separated. Thus, many historicists claim the Book of Mormon cannot be both authoritative and fictional. I see this happening whenever someone effectively hides behind their testimony, using their spiritual witness as proof of historicity.12

While it is not my business to question anyone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s spiritual witness, I wonder if the questions asked about the Book of Mormon are really that specific. In my experience of listening to or reading about Latter-day Saints receiving a testimony, the question deals with whether the Book of Mormon is true, not whether it is historical. While I was wrapped up in the issue of whether the Book of Mormon is historical, I could receive no witness. It was only when I separated the two issues that I received my testimony.

Can the issue of historicity and the issue of truth be so easily separated? In one response to Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s essay, Robert A. Rees, who had already become a personal hero of mine, mentions Stephen Jay Gould?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s idea of non-overlapping magisteria.13 While I have my reservations about Gould?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s thought, it seems to me that a natural application to the Book of Mormon presents itself.14 The historicity of the Book of Mormon is an empirical question that we can resolve through normal historical-critical means of inquiry. That issue can and should be debated vigorously by both sides using any and all tools available to the respective scholars. Nevertheless, its real truth, what it communicates about the ultimate meaning of the universe and humanity?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s place in the world, belongs in a separate category. In a manner not unlike the Evangelicals regarding biblical inerrancy, many Latter-day Saints have confounded the two issues, effectively substituting the lesser issue for the weightier one.

How would separating the issue of historicity from the issue of truth affect the Book of Mormon? I think that it would have little, if any effect. Certainly, a modern Book of Mormon would affect some particularities of interpretation, but the universal message of the Book of Mormon would be untouched. Most Latter-day Saints will continue to read it for guidance and inspiration largely unaware of the academic debate. For all Mormons, it will remain a witness to Christ, it will remain an affirmation of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s prophetic calling, and it will remain God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s statement to humanity in power.

Related to, though also distinct from the problem of history and truth, is the confounding of author and authority. Thus, Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon is a worthless fraud but Nephi et. al. make it Scripture. It is not as though Joseph could not write Scripture; Latter-day Saints can accept him as the author of the Doctrine and Covenants (at least certain sections) and parts of the Pearl of Great Price. So, in principle, they can accept the idea that it is not the human author that makes a given work the word of God.

Yet the same principles that transform Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s undisputed works into Scripture apply equally well to the Book of Mormon and other ?¢Ç¨?ìancient?¢Ç¨¬ù scriptures. On a mundane level, they are Scripture because the Latter-day Saints as a community accept them as such by common consent. On a more important level, they are Scripture because God backs them with his authority.

In my mind then, the picture of Joseph Smith as a prophet remains unchanged even if he wrote the Book of Mormon. Joseph was a prophet because he did what prophets do?¢Ç¨Äúcompelled, even seduced by God,15 he brought forth the message that burned within him. And the most important message of the Book of Mormon is a witness of this?¢Ç¨ÄúGod is still talking to mankind! Will we listen?

If we allow the authority of the Book of Mormon to rest where it belongs, different possibilities open for Joseph Smith. Assuming he knowingly wrote the Book of Mormon and passed it off as ancient, he did so with God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s authority and with a clear conscience knowing he was acting as God directed. For those who would object that God would not do such a thing, I would direct them to the Exodus story, 1 Kings 22, or Abraham 2:22-25. God is certainly not above using a bit of deception, or allowing people to continue in harmless beliefs, if it accomplishes a greater purpose.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that Joseph knowingly passed off his own work as that of the ancients. The available evidence leads me to believe that Joseph honestly believed he was translating ancient records. I seriously doubt anyone could have perpetuated such a charade for nearly twenty years without cracking under the pressure. He suffered too much, and could have easily ended many of his troubles simply by coming clean about the origin of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps God really is not above deceiving his own prophets.

The important point here is that God worked with Joseph to get His message across ?¢Ç¨?ìaccording to [our] language, unto [our] understanding?¢Ç¨¬ù (2 Ne. 31:5). The Book of Mormon is not Scripture because Joseph Smith translated it from ancient records, and therefore does not cease to be Scripture if Joseph Smith is its human author. It is Scripture because God speaks to us through it.
That is enough.

NOTES

1. See Brent Lee Metcalfe ?¢Ç¨?ìReinventing Lamanite Identity,?¢Ç¨¬ù Sunstone (March 2004): 25 note 39 and Thomas W. Murphy, ?¢Ç¨?ìInventing Galileo,?¢Ç¨¬ù Sunstone March (2004): 58-61.

2. Sunstone (March 2005): 69-74.

3. For the most recent example, see Kevin Christensen, ?¢Ç¨?ìDetermining What is ?¢Ç¨ÀúReal,?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù Sunstone (November 2005): 66-70.

4. Setting aside the question of whether Christensen is committing a ?¢Ç¨?ìfallacy from Kuhn,?¢Ç¨¬ù framing the authorship issue as a paradigm debate has cast new light on the dynamics of the authorship debate. It has also kept his writings remarkably free from rancor. Would that all apologists imitate his irenic tone!

5. Timothy A. Griffy, ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Environmental Theory of Book of Mormon Interpretation,?¢Ç¨¬ù unpublished essay in possession of the author, copies available upon request.

6. Timothy A. Griffy, letter to the editor, Sunstone (April 1997): 2-3.

7. Vogel, ?¢Ç¨?ìParadigm Shift,?¢Ç¨¬ù 73.

8. Scott C. Dunn, ?¢Ç¨?ìAutomaticity and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon,?¢Ç¨¬ù in American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon, ed. Dan Vogel and Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 17-46.

9. Clay L. Chandler, ?¢Ç¨?ìScrying for the Lord: Magic, Mysticism, and the Origins of the Book of Mormon,?¢Ç¨¬ù Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 36, no. 1 (Winter 2003): 43-78.

10. C. Jess Groesbeck, ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Book of Mormon as a Symbolic History: A New Perspective on Its Place in History and Religion,?¢Ç¨¬ù Sunstone (March 2004): 35-45.

11. Robert M. Price, ?¢Ç¨?ìProphecy and Palimpsest,?¢Ç¨¬ù Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 35, no. 3 (Fall 2002): 67-82.

12. With varying degrees of explicitness, see Trent D. Stephens, ?¢Ç¨?ìNow What??¢Ç¨¬ù Sunstone (March 2004): 29; Benjamin H. Layman, letter to the editor, Sunstone (July 2004): 4; Roger Terry, letter to the editor, Sunstone (May 2005): 5-6; Larry Morris, letter to the editor, Sunstone (November 2005): 4. I found Morris?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ letter particularly condescending. I do not need his kind of ?¢Ç¨?ìempathy.?¢Ç¨¬ù

13. Robert A. Rees, letter to the editor, Sunstone (May 2005): 4.

14. Note Dan Vogel subsequently made a similar point in a letter to the editor, Sunstone (September 2005): 5.

15. See Jer. 20:7, which some versions translate ?¢Ç¨?ìseduced?¢Ç¨¬ù rather than ?¢Ç¨?ìdeceived?¢Ç¨¬ù as per the KJV.
Dan Vogel Says:
March 10th, 2006 at 9:25 AM
Brant Gardner complains that my critique misrepresents his methodology, but I see no significant difference between what Gardner defends and what I had critiqued. In fact, his response simply reiterates what I had described and labors to overcome my assessment. So the issue is not my misrepresentation of his methodology, but whether or not my critique is valid. In the end, I believe Gardner provides us with a clear description of how an apologist tries to close his paradigm to negative evidence.

Actually, if anyone has misrepresented his methodology, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Gardner himself. While he defends ?¢Ç¨?ìlook[ing] for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon,?¢Ç¨¬ù he neglects to mention the balance of his own description of his methodology: ?¢Ç¨?ìI started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.?¢Ç¨¬ù Why ?¢Ç¨?ìinstead of?¢Ç¨¬ù? Why not ?¢Ç¨?ìin addition to?¢Ç¨¬ù?

In my essay, I suggested that ?¢Ç¨?ìthis one-way procedure has apologetic advantages because if one looks only for similarities in the text, rather than comparing the text as a whole against what is known about Mesoamerica, historical anachronisms become invisible to researchers and falsifiability becomes impossible?¢Ç¨¬ù (SUNSTONE 136 [March 2005]: 71). That is still a valid observation, and nothing Gardner says changes that.

What are the apologetic advantages of Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s one-way methodology? Gardner implies that ?¢Ç¨?ìhistorical anachronisms?¢Ç¨¬ù that are being avoided are mere ?¢Ç¨?ìlabeling problems,?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìanachronous words,?¢Ç¨¬ù such as one would expect to find in any translation. Even an inspired translation? Admittedly, it is less difficult finding the Mesoamerican tapir or deer in the Book of Mormon than finding the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s horse in Mesoamerica, but Gardner knows is methodology avoids much bigger problems than explaining a few anachronistic words. He is quite aware that his methodology relieves apologists from the impossible task of finding an Israelite colony in ancient America. As he explained to Kevin Christensen:

?¢Ç¨?ìWould I ever reconstruct Mesoamerican society in a way that appeared to represent Christianized Old World peoples? No. I wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t.

?¢Ç¨?ìThe rather interesting discovery made just a few years back was that I, and many other Mesoamericanists, had simply made some incorrect assumptions about the [Book of Mormon] text. The attempts of LDS archaeological apologetics was for years focused on finding the Christian or the Hebrew–or who knows what–in Mesoamerican archaeology.

?¢Ç¨?ìThe difference came when I started looking for Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon instead of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica. Oddly enough, there is a huge difference, and the nature and the quality of the correlations has changed with that single shift in perspective.?¢Ç¨¬ù (B. Gardner to K. Christensen, quoted in FARMS Review 16/1 [2004]: 309)

Obviously, Gardner knows his methodology avoids more than a few anachronistic words. Nevertheless, Gardner assures us that ?¢Ç¨?ìmost of them are anachronous words that do not clearly have any supporting descriptive actions that allow us to be sure that the word represents what we think it does.?¢Ç¨¬ù What does it mean ?¢Ç¨?ìto be sure?¢Ç¨¬ù? How much contextual information does an apologist need to conclude the translation is accurate? Given the fact that apologists have no difficulty associating the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìhorse?¢Ç¨¬ù with tapir and deer despite its being contextualized with ?¢Ç¨?ìchariots?¢Ç¨¬ù (Alma 18:9-12; 20:6; 3 Nephi 3:22), Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s appeal to contextual evidence is rather dubious. When combined with Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s appeal to deconstructionism and the indeterminancy of sign and signified, the apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ ability to avoid the implications of anachronistic words is only limited by their imaginations.

However, some anachronisms aren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t so easily explained. The word ?¢Ç¨?ìsteel,?¢Ç¨¬ù for example, is difficult to explain with a substitute word because metallurgy is unknown in Mesoamerica before about AD 900. Apparently this kind of anachronism comes under the ?¢Ç¨?ìanomalous data?¢Ç¨¬ù that Gardner believes should be weighed against the ?¢Ç¨?ìlarger data set?¢Ç¨¬ù–a data set, by the way, accumulated by using his one-way methodology. This simply begs the question in more than one way. If the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s historicity was not an issue, there might be some agreement on what constitutes a ?¢Ç¨?ìlarger data set.?¢Ç¨¬ù Those who see the Book of Mormon as a product of the nineteenth century have a different ?¢Ç¨?ìdata set?¢Ç¨¬ù from which to view anachronistic words and ideas. Indeed, what Gardner regards as ?¢Ç¨?ìanomalous data?¢Ç¨¬ù is no longer anomalous from a nineteenth-century perspective. Such anachronisms are expected when weighed against the ?¢Ç¨?ìlarger data set?¢Ç¨¬ù of the Mound Builder Myth, anti-Masonic and anti-Universalist rhetoric, and over reliance on the KJV of the Bible. Against this backdrop, the apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ parallels become the ?¢Ç¨?ìanomalous data.?¢Ç¨¬ù Indeed, Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s assertion that ?¢Ç¨?ìany text written in a particular time ought to show evidence of the time and culture in which it was created?¢Ç¨¬ù means different things to apologists and critics.

Of course, weighing the anachronisms against the ?¢Ç¨?ìlarger data set?¢Ç¨¬ù would be more meaningful if that ?¢Ç¨?ìdata set?¢Ç¨¬ù included a direct connection to ancient America. In such a situation, one could more confidently make allowances for anachronisms. As it is, one does not know if one is correcting an ancient but mistaken author, clarifying a translator?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s error, or facilitating a forger. Given the fact that the Book of Mormon has not made a direct connection to ancient America and the apologists?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ position increasingly relies on ad hoc theories such as the awkward-fitting limited geography, the Book of Mormon has not earned the benefit of the doubt that apologists constantly demand.

Nevertheless, Gardner suggests that we set aside word anachronisms and focus on a different kind of anachronism:

?¢Ç¨?ìApart from the possible translation anachronisms, there are ample cases where motivations, descriptions and assumptions would be anachronistic that would rapidly falsify the hypothesis. In the case of the Book of Mormon there are complex relationships between culture areas, peoples, languages and times that must all fit with know[n] geography, topography, linguistics and time periods. There are a number of descriptions of economic and political developments that should reflect conditions at the historical time, if it is an ancient document.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Gardner contends that these kinds of anachronisms ?¢Ç¨?ìallow for falsification?¢Ç¨¬ù and are ?¢Ç¨?ìmuch more damaging to a hypothesis of antiquity.?¢Ç¨¬ù However, when one observes Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s methodology at work, one quickly discovers that these other kinds of anachronisms are handled in much the same way as word anachronisms: by reading what is known about Mesoamerica into the Book of Mormon. Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s essay ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Gadianton Robbers in Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s theological History: Their Structural Role and Plausible Identification?¢Ç¨¬ù (2002) (available on FAIR.com), which is sometimes suggested by apologists as an alternative to the anti-Masonic interpretation, is an example of how his methodology works. While I found many things in the essay objectionable, I want to focus on how he bends the Book of Mormon narrative to fit his conception of Mesoamerican history.

Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s main objective is to connect the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Gadianton robbers with the jaguar cult centered in Teotihuac?É¬°n in the Valley of Mexico, which he argues corresponds to the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìland northward.?¢Ç¨¬ù A major problem is that the Book of Mormon never describes secret combinations as occupying the land northward, except when it was also occupied by the Jaredites. Not to worry, Gardner believes Mormon interrupts his account of secret combinations among the Nephites with the story of mass migrations into the land northward about 46 B.C. (see Helaman 3) because he is hinting about the origin and location of the Gadiantons of his own day. Never mind that Mormon does not make this claim. For Gardner, the juxtaposition of the two stories is enough to justify his reading Mesoamerican history into the Book of Mormon.

There are also several problems with Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claim that the migrants?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ destination was Teotihuac?É¬°n. Gardner argues:

?¢Ç¨?ìThe essential elements that allow us to identify this area are:

It is northward of the Nephite lands
There are many waters
It is nearly desolate of trees
There are cement buildings

?¢Ç¨?ìFrom perhaps 100 BC to 600 AD there is only one area in Mesoamerica that fits all of these descriptions, and that is the city known as Teotihuac?É¬°n. It is north of the Nephite lands. It is near the lake that at that time occupied the current site of Mexico City. It has buildings made of high quality cement. The lack of trees and the environmental imbalance created by denuding the land of trees is hypothesized as a major factor in creating the downfall of Teotihuac?É¬°n. We have several very specific requirements that must all converge at one point to fit Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description and there is only one area in Mesoamerica that fits this description well in the time period described.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claim that Teotihuac?É¬°n ?¢Ç¨?ìfits all of these descriptions?¢Ç¨¬ù is true only if one is willing to make several significant adjustments to the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims.

First, Gardner creates two lands of many waters: one in the land of Cumorah (the site of the Jaredite and Nephite destructions), which apologists have identified as the Papaloapan Lagoon System just west of the Isthums of Tehuantepec near Tres Zapotes, and another farther west and north in the Valley of Mexico. According to Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s reading, the migrants went to Teotihuac?É¬°n, which is about 225 miles northwest from Tres Zapotes. Yet Helaman 3 links its land of many waters with the Jaredite destruction. If there were two lands of many waters, one would expect Mormon to distinguish the area of many waters in Helaman 3:4 from the more famous “land of many waters” of Cumorah. Gardner admits that Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description is ?¢Ç¨?ìgiven in such a way that Mormon likely supposed that we should easily understand what he was describing.?¢Ç¨¬ù Gardner mentions the Mexican lake but Helaman says ?¢Ç¨?ìlarge bodies of water,?¢Ç¨¬ù which early readers readily identified with the Great Lakes. The creation of two lands of many waters is entirely ad hoc and forced.

Second, Gardner also says he chose Teotihuac?É¬°n because it had buildings made of high quality cement. He references an article by Matthew G. Wells and John W. Welch, which describes the appearance of cement at Teotihuac?É¬°n ?¢Ç¨?ìas early as the middle of the first century B.C.?¢Ç¨¬ù (?¢Ç¨?ìConcrete Evidence for the Book of Mormon,?¢Ç¨¬ù in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon [Salt Lake City: Deseret; Provo, UT: FARMS, 1992], 212-14). While the use of cement began in the north, it soon spread to ?¢Ç¨?ìthe Maya regions of southern Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras?¢Ç¨¬ù (p. 212). This statement seems odd since Mormon makes the use of cement sound like a peculiarity of living in the deforested north country. Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s linking cement construction with the lack of timber is also at odds with David S. Hyman?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description of how the cement was made: ?¢Ç¨?ì[The limestone was purified on a] cylindrical pile of timber, which requires a vast amount of labor to cut and considerable skill to construct in such a way that combustion of the stone and wood is complete and a minimum of impurities remains in the product?¢Ç¨¬ù (David S. Hyman, A Study of the Calcareous Cements in Prehispanic Mesoamerican Building, as quoted in Wells and Welch, 213).

Third, Gardner acknowledges but fails to overcome the differences in the timing of the deforestation of the area. While Mormon attributes it to the Jaredites, in Teotihuac?É¬°n it does not happen until ?¢Ç¨?ì250 AD and later.?¢Ç¨¬ù To overcome this monumental problem, Gardner claims that Mormon did not have ?¢Ç¨?ìhistorical records that tell of the land to which these people went.?¢Ç¨¬ù Then he gives two possible solutions to his problem: Mormon was either wrong about the destination of the migrants or he is describing the Teotihuac?É¬°n of his day. Of course, this ad hoc rationalization fails if Mormon was relying on historical sources, which Mormon said he was doing (Helaman 3:13-16).

Fourth, the biggest problem is that Mormon never connects the Gadiantons with the northern migration; that is Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s attempt to force the Book of Mormon into a Mesoamerican mold. In fact, at no time are the Gadiantons described as being located in the land northward let alone radiating from a major city near large bodies of water. This is all Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s doing. Despite living in the land northward until age 11, Mormon does not mention the Gadiantons until moving to Zarahemla (Mormon 1:18). As far as Mormon is concerned, the Gadiantons were in league with the Lamanites to destroy the Nephites and were located by treaty to the south of Nephite lands (Mormon 1:18; 2:28-29).

Despite such heavy-handed manipulation of the text, Gardner conclusion is overly confident:

?¢Ç¨?ìWhen we place known Mesoamerican history side by side with Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s spiritual history, we find in both accounts a militarism exacerbated by a small contingent of a foreign element from the lands northward. The Book of Mormon timing for this description corresponds directly to the secular history of the expansion of Teotihuac?É¬°n throughout all of Mesoamerica, but particularly the Maya region to their south.?¢Ç¨¬ù

On the contrary, there are significant differences and gaps. First, although from the north himself, Mormon always looked to the south for his enemy. He is unconcerned about the northern country; for him, it is not a foreign country filled with Lamanites and Gadiantons, but allies and recruits for his armies. Second, Mormon does not ascribe the downfall of Nephite rule to ?¢Ç¨?ìmilitarism exacerbated by a small contingent of a foreign element from the lands northward.?¢Ç¨¬ù Again, that is Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s forcing the Book of Mormon into his Mesoamerican mold.

In this manner, Gardner shows us what he means by finding Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon. Evidently his procedure includes correcting the text using his understanding of Mesoamerican history, which not only creates a closed circularity of interpretation but also renders his claim about falsification rather meaningless. Nevertheless, just as the Book of Mormon cannot make a direct connection to ancient America, Mesoamerica makes no direct connection with the Book of Mormon.

Finally, Gardner seeks to justify his one-way method by suggesting that it is no different than my attempts to connect the Book of Mormon to the nineteenth century. He argues, ?¢Ç¨?ìIt is ironic that Vogel would be so adamant that my method must be incorrect when it is so similar to his own.?¢Ç¨¬ù However, in contextualizing the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s environment, I am not necessarily trying to prove it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s modern origin. As I have repeatedly stated, the issue of historicity is secondary to understanding the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s message and the interpretive dynamic between it and its first readers. So, if my approach deals with the question of historicity at all, it deals with it indirectly.

Moreover, besides being a fallacious appeal to special circumstances, Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s comparison is inappropriate for the simple reason that I believe it is fiction and he believes it is authentic history–hence the burden of proof is his, not mine. Free of this burden, I obviously have more flexibility in my interpretations than someone trying to demonstrate historicity. Simply put, one does not demonstrate historicity by using the same methods as someone interpreting a novel.
Stephen M (Ethesis) Says:
March 26th, 2006 at 8:02 AM
I begin by affirming as clearly as possible my beliefs about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is truly the word of God, and Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God. Beyond that, nothing else matters. The issues of authorship and dating for this scripture are relevant only for interpreting the work. If an unambiguous statement from Joseph Smith stating he wrote the Book of Mormon from whole cloth were found tomorrow, it would not affect my faith. Likewise, if a proverbial ?¢Ç¨?ìWelcome to Zarahemla?¢Ç¨¬ù sign were found, it would not affect my faith.

Reminds me of the very pragmatic nature of twelve step programs. People who have encountered a higher power, but who are extremely relaxed in their possible definitions of it (nothing like hearing an athiest talk about the “god of his understanding”).

If the spiritual connection has occurred, the rest of the issues are transformed.
A.J. Says:
March 26th, 2006 at 1:09 PM
Call me a skeptic. It is my opinion that the world’s religions are almost wholly (or wholly) the work of mankind, that they are “spun of whole cloth.” I question the veracity of pretty much all religious claims.

So, what does this have to do with Mormonism? After much reading, observation, discussion, and thought, I have come to think that it is very unlikely that Joseph Smith was a tranlator of ancient documents, and that it is very unlikely that the Book of Mormon describes persons who actually lived and actual events and locations. (With one exception: Jesus might have lived, but I question his divinity and many the actions attributed to him via Christian tradition. I think that the description of his visitation to the American continent found in the Book of Mormon is very likely fiction.)

So, what’s my point in writing today? Well, my family members are now at sacrament meeting. I have attended at various times in the past, but it is a very unpleasant experience for me. I sit there and keep my mouth shut while my point of view is belittled, while persons like me are painted as being somehow deficient, lacking, and just plain wrong. So I guess here’s my point: I’m interested in some of the things that religions do (help people to live wisely and ethically), but I am not interested in belonging to an organization that asks (requires?) its members to pass off fiction as fact. I appeal to those of you out there who think likewise to speak up, please. I want to hear from you.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
March 26th, 2006 at 2:52 PM
A.J. I am in agreement with your perception of religion in general and with the historicity of the Book of Mormon in particlar.

Despite my agreement with you on this, I was once powerfully impacted by the BOM in surprising and mysterious ways–one could even call it mystical experience–at a critical point in my seeking life. The experience has affected me in such a way that my entire perspective of truth and meaning have been affected over all the more than 40 years since.

At this time in my golden years, now that I am no longer LDS but still have family members who represent a rainbow of religious and philosophical beliefs, I find it useful to think of the BOM in this way: Setting aside demands to know its true origin–whether by man, magic or mischief–the BOM is an epic story that has power. Like an epic poem. It contains metaphors, injunctions, images and people with names and beliefs that have created a unique culture: a community of adherants and seekers. It gives a common language for those who are moved in whatever way by its words.

So, in some mysterious way it brings certain kinds of people together. That is a mystery that interests me intensely and I am personally drawn to those who can appreciate this mystery without demands that the book must be worshipped or accepted as any of its exponents claim.

Thus, you and I are now in conversation. Could it even be communion? Perhaps. Let us see what develops.
A.J. Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 8:37 AM
Thanks for your reply, Eugene.

You write that you were once powerfully impacted by the BOM and compare it to an epic poem. I certainly do see the value in fiction to teach, inspire, and motivate. However, to me, the BOM is not especially instructive, inspirational, or motivational. There are many other pieces of fiction that I value much, much more than the BOM. I feel that the BOM is several steps below, say, Harry Potter, in complexity of plot and character development.

Yes, it is a curiosity (or mystery, as you say) that the BOM became a centerpiece in the gathering of so many people. I attribute this not so much to the quality of the BOM (see above paragraph), but rather to the (generally) social nature of Homo Sapiens.

I read an interesting book recently entitled THE END OF FAITH, by Sam Harris. Harris argues that we ought to explore issues of ethics and spiritual experience, but not base our explorations on adherence to claims for which there is not good supporting evidence.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 6:10 PM
Again I agree with you, A.J., that the BOM cannot be considered great literature as can the Bible, for instance–especially the KJV. In fact the singular chapter of the BOM that impacted me so powerfully was a direct quote from the KJV except for the 10 words at its beginning: “And then shall that which was written come to pass:…”

It was not that the BOM was anything of literary note, rather it was just a compelling personal experience which followed soon after having had a powerful and puzzling dream. I don’t want to divert our discussion of BOM historicity by recounting the details of these personal experiences, but my concern about the BOM as used by the Church is one of CONTROL–not unlike a “Manchurian Candidate” program for manipulating masses of people–our people.

Your reference to Sam Harris’s book makes a good point. But the center of gravity for the Mormon Church–and its need to control lives–lies right smack in the BOM. The leaders rely on that control rather than any hard evidence to support it.

Those of our people who have been “born in the covenant” or who have completed a successful mission find it very difficult to reach an escape velocity in exploring their true selves or seeking new experiences, ways of thinking or being.

Thank God for Sunstone and Dialogue and other independant LDS related publications for providing vehicles that can acheive escape velocity when desired. This is, of course, not to suggest that those vehicles cannot return to base when necessary.

I hope these images are not too obscure!

Eugene
John Says:
April 16th, 2006 at 9:36 PM
I agree that Church culture contributes to the process of ‘othering’ members with disabilities. It’s problematic when these stereotypes are perpetuated through the stories we tell.

When I think about why members share these stories, I find that the issue is a complex one. As harmful as putting people with physical and mental differences on pedestals may be, I think that it’s progress over how the same people were viewed in the not so distant past. Our society said very unkind things about these people and judged them harshly. Now we’re over-correcting, and cautious in how we talk about you and others. It’s like the uncomfortable phase you might go through when you’ve just reconciled from a nasty falling out with an extended family member.

I think that this is an issue that touches on all of us, as we all probably know people with disabilities. I think we should take a closer look at why we elevate people with disabilities in the Church, what the costs are, and what alternatives might be available to us. Any suggestions for us, Jana?
Meg Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 5:51 AM
I am not at all surprised at what you say. I also have to say that as a convert I have found that this is the case not only with the Church – but with any religion (in my experience) that puts any emphasis on a “personal relationship” type of religious experience. I am treated as heroic – not as an individual with the same issues of belief that any member tends to have, It is as if – by being “handicapped” I am also incredibly spiritually gifted and all of a sudden – have perfect faith. My needs as a regular occasionally frustrated member are pushed to the side – as they obviously do not exist because I have the heroic gift of suffering going for me. Guess what folks – I don’t!!! For me – if I were to introduce myself to you – it would never occur to me to even mention that I have multiple sclerosis. My physical issues aren’t who I am – I am who I am. Does the general population go around saying – “Hi! I’m Mary Jones, I have red hair, a crooked big toe, and a family history of heart disease.” No – they don’t view themselves as a crooked big toe with a history of heart disease any more than I view myself as a multiple scerosis with difficulty with mobility and holding things without a major tremor.

I have found in going to different churches that are less personal in their approach to belief and the individual that I am treated as if I am not all there – almost as if – by speaking slowly and patronizingly to me I will better understand what is being said to me.

Perhaps this is because my handicap is from an illness and not an injury so I wonder if I am a symbol of their fears of what might happen to them – so if they treat me as a non-person or as a holy person it removes it from the realm of possibility for them?
janaremy Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 10:22 AM
Meg and John:

First of all, thank you for your comments. Let me reply…
Meg: Your comment illustrates so nicely what I was trying to say in my post–that Mormons with disabilities are treated as heroes instead of people. I think it might be interesting to think about the difference between a chronic, perhaps debilitiating, illness rather than an injury. I’m going to think about that distinction some more. In my case, my disability was the result of an illness (cancer), but the cancer is gone and I’m left with the disability. I’m not sure most people know how I became disabled, they just know that I have a prosthesis, or I walk differently. Also, I am curious which churches you’ve attended where you felt the emphasis was less on the individual–can you give some examples? One thing I like about academia (I’m in a PhD program right now), is that I rarely feel any pity from colleagues. And I don’t ever feel as if I’m on a pedestal, either. My disability is treated rather matter-of-factly, if at all. Such a refreshing change from the way I feel treated in Mormon settings.
John: I think you’re right in pointing out that a pedestal might be a better place for someone with a disability than an institution (as was all-too-common just a generation ago). However, our church has a very long way to go before we fully accept disability. I think the biggest problem stems from a persistent belief that God has a purpose in making that person disabled, so we create a narrative to ‘explain’ disability in faith-promoting terms. Also, there is a common belief among Mormons that the reason for disabled people is so the ppl around them can learn more about charity from them. However, if someone w/a disability is reduced to being a ‘tool’ for other’s growth, then that person is no longer an individual, they are just a foil for the able-bodied people who ’serve’ them.
In my short post I suggested that we need to change the types of stories we tell about people with disabilities. I still believe that this is the best first step. Because, if we stop using stories of disability as ‘tools’ in our talks, we will stop viewing people with disabilities that way in our congregations, too.
Stephen Carter Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 11:34 AM
During my teenage years I had cystic acne. It was a really strange purgatory. I was both invisible, and striking. Because I was ugly. Man, was I ugly. I was a walking example of volcanic activity. My face was often compared to a certain flatbread-based Italian cuisine.

Meat lovers.

I saw this anti-steroids poster the other day that showed someone’s back all covered with boils. It said something like, “Steroids make you sexy.” And I thought, “Huh. That’s how I looked for a long time.”

In the context of this discussion, I think its interesting to see where I registered on the disability scale. In some ways, I think you could say I was disabled. I couldn’t interact socially since I was always putting people off their lunch. The opposite sex was repulsed by me, and I was constantly in pain from the King Kong zits that covered my body. However, no one ever put me up as an example of sainthood, or extolled my suffering as part of God’s plan or a prop to their faith.

I didn’t expect them to. It wasn’t until now that I ever considered my condition as a possible disability. It’s probably because everyone has a mild form of acne at one time in their lives, so maybe they figured I just didn’t wash my face or something. But I think a bigger element was that it’s very hard to draw your warm fuzzies from ugly people. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie starring a kid with cystic acne. I don’t think it will ever happen. People with skin problems star in horror movies.

Angels never have acne.
janaremy Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 3:19 PM
Stephen:
Thank you for your comment. I feel you’ve made an important contribution to this discussion!

Perhaps I should have defined disability, but I purposefully left it broad in my post. But there certainly are grey areas–are obese people disabled? people with cystic acne? pregnant women? people with diabetes or asthma? Octogenarians?

Though I belive that disability as a category isn’t ‘real’–it’s just a social construction–I still use the term often because I think it’s productive to do so. When I use this term I suspect that it conjures up an image of someone in a wheelchair or with a mobility impairment. But all of us are ‘disabled’ in one sense or another–we wear glasses, we have high cholesterol, our knees ache when it rains, we have hearing loss on one ear, are infertile, etc. In some ways, I think the stigma and fear that surrounds disability is the fear that it could someday be _you_ with the skin condition, or the breast cancer, or the arm lost in a car accident. We are all so vulnerable and at any time we might be the one in the wheelchair instead of the person staring at them.

Recognizing the breadth of disability is an important step to fully accepting those in our world with disabilities and treating them as the ‘normal’ people that they are.
Meg Says:
April 19th, 2006 at 4:31 PM
Jana – I am a convert from a family with a history of coming from different religions – my dad’s side was Catholic and my mom’s Episcopalian and Methodist. On my husband’s side his family is Presbyterian and Southern Baptist. Between our many-splendored religous backgrounds and being a social creature of some curiosity I have been to Methodist, Catholic, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Mennonite, Unitarian Universalist, and Southern Baptist since my m.s. became obvious in the last five years.

In the more main line Protestant churches – the Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches I had the experience of the minister and ushers talking to my husband instead of me. Admittedly I was on a crutch (going through an exacerbation at the time) and had an obvious hand tremor as well as being slow walking and sitting. I think (hope) they meant well – but it is a bit disconcerting to be talked over. I have come to believe (having experienced this before) that a physical disability that is obvious and in your face such as an inability to hold something without shaking can be at best distracting and at worst scary resulting in people not knowing what to do or where to look and if they are raised with the “don’t look it’s rude” school of politeness – than the not talking method of dealing with it becomes a natural extension.

The Catholics didn’t say a word one way or the other except that the usher asked if I wanted to sit closer to the altar and told me where the handicapped restroom was. This is a large city parish on a Sunday with two people in wheelchairs that I could see – so at least I was not alone. As we left I was greeted by the parish priest (who knows my family) as was everybody else. I was not greeted by anyone else who did not know me – but than that’s par for the course for every Catholic parish I have ever known.

The Mennonite and Unitarian Universalist were quite comfortable and accepting – -both are rather liberal congregations – with women ministers and a history of accepting the “unacceptable” in our community. (They have a ministry for AIDS patients at the UU church and both sponsor several A.A. and N.A. type groups.) I found them relaxed and welcoming – taking time to look out for me the person and not me the “handicap” but not making an issue of it. If I didn’t believe in the Church it would be very easy to find a spiritual home in one of those two. If I were to take a sabbatical I would attend one of those two for my break.

The Baptist and Methodist congregations (both independent, free-standing churches) were very lovely and cloying and extra attentive and extra reminding me of my special gift as given to me by God. There was also in the Baptist church a not too subtle message given that I should pray for healing because if I had enough faith – after God had recognized me as his special child by letting me have this gift of disability he would then heal me as an example of his generosity and special love for me abd as a lesson to others to bring them to Jesus by the example of my miracle.

I find that I still run into not just the Baptists but other well-meaning people of strong belief who tell me how I can be healed by simply _________ (fill in the blank – praying, going to this or that healing service, seeing this or that minister, etc.) which results in my having developed a number of replies – different ones based on how well I know the person and how nice they are to me about making the suggestion. (My most memorable confrontaion with one pushy person came about after I told him that I was a member of the LDS church after which he told me that God was punishing me and as soon as I left the church and came back to God I would be healed instantly! We obviously live in missionary territory!)

Most people mean well – whether they are offering a new medically based cure or doctor or clinic they heard about (or their cousin’s aunt’s brother-in-law’s neighbor used to get better from m.s.) or a new prayer or faith healer. They just seem to need to “help” you because they have the answer and you don’t.

I can’t say I am good enough to like being special or invisible – I want to be treated the same as everyone else as much as I am capable of functioning like everyone else. If someone isn’t sure what my problem is I wish they would talk to me about it. They might be surprised how much I have to share and that I am NOT contagious, don’t need healing, and am remarkably visible for someone who is handicapped!

Forgive my L-O-N-G answer – I am afraid I took the opportunity to get off my chest the entire load I was reminded is there when I read your statement of the committee about disabilities with no one on it who was disabled. (Sort of like a committee for the discussion of the Book of Mormon entirely staffed by people who had only heard the first missionary discussion! They know it exists and that it is important but that’s about all they can tell you!) Thank you for giving me the opportunity and for standing up to point out how foolish it is to have discussion of a subject without the experts being there! – Meg
janaremy Says:
April 20th, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Meg:
Thank you for answering my question! My experiences w/other religions have not been as varied as yours, but I agree that some faiths are definitely more accepting of physical difference than others. I particularly like my local Quaker Meeting–there are several people who attend who have mobility impairments and they are treated no differently than anyone else! I also like that no one in the Meeting seems particularly concerned about appearance. People dress simply and comfortably. It’s so refreshing when compared to the fussy attire and formality of Mo congregations (a pet peeve–I can walk better in athletic shoes and pants, but I feel I should wear dressy clothes and dressy shoes to church even though they are quite uncomfortable for me…).
Again, thank you for contributing to the discussion and for sharing your experiences.
Kevin Christensen Says:
May 3rd, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Vogel, in responding to Blake Ostler offers what I consider a most revealing statement:

?¢Ç¨?ìOne cannot simply invoke distance problems as the reason for rejecting hemispheric geography. To do so is to beg the question. They must propose a geography that fits the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description of a narrow neck of land between lands northward and southward better than traditional hemispheric geography. Even Ostler recognizes that Sorenson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s theory doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t do that. If Panama is a better fit and hemispheric geography comes into play, then distances are problematic and can be read as evidence of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s naivete. Evidently Joseph Smith and first-generation Mormons (and most present believers in the Book of Mormon as well) were oblivious to problems of distance and population growth. As far as can be determined, M. T. Lamb?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 1887 book The Golden Bible was first to question Book of Mormon historicity based on these problems.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I find this a remarkably telling statement. Notice particularly the arguments that ?¢Ç¨?ìinvoking distance problems…is to beg the question.?¢Ç¨¬ù
Technically, ?¢Ç¨?ìbegging the question?¢Ç¨¬ù is to assume the very thing that you pretend to argue. This, of course, is exactly what Vogel does here. He assumes hemispheric geography and uses that assumption to dismiss as ?¢Ç¨?ìJoseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s naivete?¢Ç¨¬ù passages that provide evidence against that reading. Kuhn had observed a degree of self-reference in all paradigms commenting that ?¢Ç¨?ìParadigms not only provide scientists with a map, but with some of the directions for map-making.?¢Ç¨¬ù The only way to avoid the problem of circular reasoning in paradigm debate is to admit the issue up front, and argue the paradigms in terms of which better explains the evidence. And in arguing which is better, we should also be upfront about the selection and valuing process we use in deciding which is better. I discussed all of this in detail in ?¢Ç¨?ìParadigms Crossed?¢Ç¨¬ù in RBBM 7:2. (Incidentally, Vogel claims that my use of Kuhn is ?¢Ç¨?ìselective:?¢Ç¨¬ù Specifically, he says ?¢Ç¨?ìThe wording of his denial is an admission that his use of Kuhn is selective, and therefore it is out of context and unrepresentative of Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s complete thought.?¢Ç¨¬ù I observe that of all the quotes from both Kuhn and Barbour that he used in his Sunstone essay ?¢Ç¨?ìIs a Paradigm Shift in Book of Mormon Studies Possible??¢Ç¨¬ù I spotted only one that I had not previously used in my FARMS essays. ?¢Ç¨?ì If there is something amiss or non-representative in my selections, I find it of interest that he follows my selections so slavishly.)

Notice Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s admission that no one considered distance issues in the Book of Mormon until 1887. He tellingly describes readers before Lamb as ?¢Ç¨?ìoblivious.?¢Ç¨¬ù By implication, this admits that Book of Mormon speculations and opinions offered before that time should be recognized as pre-critical, of interest for social history perhaps, but worse than useless in establishing the geography of Book of Mormon events. Indeed, John Sorenson has shown that the first serious attempt to examine all of the Book of Mormon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s internal statements did not appear until 1938, fifty one years after Lamb. Sorenson and John Clark offered further refinements of internal geographies in FARMS publications. Vogel, despite admitting that there is no evidence that anyone did the proper critical study, blithely offers as support for his interpretation of the Great Lakes region as the ?¢Ç¨?ìland of many waters?¢Ç¨¬ù the conclusions of those same, undeniably pre-critical, demonstrably ?¢Ç¨?ìoblivious?¢Ç¨¬ù readers. Begging the question indeed.

Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s approach profoundly affects his reading of the text: ?¢Ç¨?ìIf Panama is a better fit and hemispheric geography comes into play, then distances are problematic and can be read as evidence of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s naivet?É¬©.?¢Ç¨¬ù His arguments in the introduction to American Apocrypha make his case that Panama is a better fit for the narrow neck, but I noticed that he makes the case by only using a few passages to define the problem. His case that Panama is ?¢Ç¨?ìbetter?¢Ç¨¬ù depends on his a priori dismissal of literally hundreds of other passages from consideration. He uses a hemispheric presumption to define the problem, the method and the standard of solution. N.R. Hansen had famously written, ?¢Ç¨?ìall data are theory-laden?¢Ç¨¬ù and here, we have a theory that converts nearly all distances in the Book of Mormon into evidence of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s naivete, rather than the essential starting point for any Book of Mormon map making. Vogel refuses to consider geographic information to establish geography. Amazing, don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t you think? In contrast, Sorenson observed in An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon that the Book of Mormon geographic statements are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle (over 700 pieces) that must all fit together. Geography as a science, given current satellite technology, it should be admitted, is much more stable than archeology, which is subject to change at any given time. So any questions of archeology, such as the ever popular horses, steel, and Hebrew street signs, ought to be seen as being made against incomplete sources of comparison. We can ask the questions of archeology, certainly. But we should not answer them too quickly. This is the point of John Clark?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s presentation at the Joseph Smith Conference in 2005, published with some revisions in the recent BYU Studies. Despite the existence of open questions, he observes a clear trend is in the direction of resolution.

In his blog reply to me, Vogel states:

?¢Ç¨?ìOn the other hand, because apologists can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make a direct connection between the Book of Mormon and ancient America, they rely on accumulation of inferences, speculations, and indirect correlations in the hope that the total weight will somehow be greater than the sum of its parts. In such a situation, I argue that negative evidence should be more decisive than perceived correlations.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Vogel is free, as always to value evidence and interpretation as he sees fit, as are well all. Of course, if I point out a problem with his arguments or evidence (the clear derivation of his 1857 letter from an 1856 novel, for instance, or in general, the kinds of things in Alan Goff?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s review of The Making of a Prophet in FR 17:2), he would prefer that I should not decide on evidence that affects his case negatively. Given unavoidable human imperfections, including mine along with his, should I not judge based on larger correlations rather then focus on some trifling imperfection? But as Kuhn explains, paradigm debates are value-driven, rather than rule driven, the operative question being, ?¢Ç¨?ìwhich problems are more significant to have solved??¢Ç¨¬ù I have often referred to Ian Barbour?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s point that paradigms are neither verified, nor falsified, but rather assessed, as Kuhn explains, in terms of accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise.

Vogel presumes here that apologists cannot make a direct connection between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. Consider the Sidon in light of this from Lawence Poulson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s website, here:
http://www.poulsenll.org/bom/zarahemla.html

“Many of those who attempt to determine the geographic location of the
Book of Mormon place undo attention on the ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow neck?¢Ç¨¬ù which is only
mentioned three times in the Book of Mormon with little geographic
information that would identify it with a specific location on the American
continents, as shown by the myriad of locations proposed for its identity..
The River Sidon, on the other hand, is mentioned over 20 times and in at
least four different geographic contexts. Each of these contexts contain
geographic information which should make it possible to find a river in the
Americas that can be uniquely identified with the River Sidon. The
description of the Nephite and Lamanite lands in Alma 22:27-34 identifies
3 specific geographic attributes relative to the River Sidon.”

“These are:
1. Its head, source, is located in a narrow strip of wilderness.
2. The head runs from east to west
3. The narrow strip of wilderness is located south of the Land of Zarahemla
and runs from an east sea to a west sea from the east to the west.”

“If one accepts that the Book of Mormon is translated correctly from the
plates given to Joseph Smith by the Angel Moroni, then the text of the
book must be accepted as the most authoritative source for information
relative to the geography of the Book of Mormon.”

“Using the three dimensional satellite maps incorporated into the computer
program ?¢Ç¨?ìEARTHA Global Explorer DVD?¢Ç¨¬ù by Delorme, a thorough search
of the geography of America in 3D can be made. Such a search results in
one and only one location that fits the geographic restraints imposed by
the text of Alma 22:27 for the River Sidon. This is as described above for
the Grijalva River, indicating that the Grijalva is the same river described
as the Sidon in the Book of Mormon and as has been proposed by many
proponents of Book of Mormon geographies.”

This strikes me as a direct and decisive correlation between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica.

Since much of the New World text of the Book of Mormon takes place on the axis between Zarahemla and Nephi, locating the Sidon seems essential in solving the jigsaw puzzle. And if the identification of the Grijalva as the Sidon is correct, that should aid the interpretation of the text. Since the Sidon and the narrow strip of wilderness are both clearly south of the Narrow Neck in the Book of Mormon, Panama, being far south of the only candidate in the Western Hemisphere for the Sidon, cannot possibly be the Narrow Neck of the text. There are many other reasons why Panama cannot be the narrow neck, including the story of Limhi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s explorers, as I discussed in detail in FARMS Review 16:1. (Others, such as Sperry, Palmer, the Washburns, and Sorenson have done so previously.) The presence of such arguments appear to fuel Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s eagerness to dismiss the distance narratives as ?¢Ç¨?ìnaivete?¢Ç¨¬ù relative to the assumption of a hemispheric view. This is exactly how data becomes ?¢Ç¨?ìtheory-laden?¢Ç¨¬ù, and demonstrates Kuhn claim that anomalies for any paradigm, Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s paradigm in this case, emerge only against resistance.

If we read the story of Limhi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s explorers against the only candidate for the river Sidon, we should not see further evidence of Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s naivete, but rather, evidence of first hand experience in the region. The story of Limhi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s explorers contains important distance implications that Vogel must dismiss as naivete, rather than as constraints on his overall reading. The explorers, we will recall, are third generation descendants of a group that come from Zarahemla to Nephi, had suffered political reverses and come into captivity, and were sent back to find Zarahemla and help. Alma?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s journey to Zarahemla from the waters of Mormon near Nephi took 21 days, which must have been reasonably close to the travel time these men were given to expect. The directions that the explorers were given, plausibly by living people who had made the journey would reasonably involve a charge to find the headwaters of the Sidon, and to follow the river valley to Zarahemla. Given that the directions that Limhi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s explorers were given would involve travel to the headwaters of a river, and then follow the river valley, ONLY the close proximity of the headwaters another river and a parallel valley provides an reasonable explanation for how the explorers could miss Zarahemla both coming and going to where they found the 24 plates. It turns out that the source of the Usamacinta river is within 20 miles of the source of the Grijalva. A single wrong turn at the beginning of a real journey in a real location explains everything neatly, including their supposition that they had actually found the ruins of Zarahemla. Reading the same story against a hemispheric geography, with a Palmyra Cumorah and a Panamanian narrow neck, as Vogel does, produces only nonsense. In his reading, the explorers must travel more than 10 times the distance, and could not possibly avoid the realization that they had gone into the land Northward, given the narrow width, and the twistings and turnings of the Panama isthsmus. A yet, after traveling across the North American continent to New York, leaving tropical climes for desert, and then temperate zones, these same diligent men must suppose that they have found there, the ruins of Zarahelma, which they knew to be in the land South. Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s reading assigns Joseph Smith the blame for such absurdities. The freedom to do so is a powerful tool for suppressing anomalies.

The Limhi story is not the only story in the Book of Mormon text that is illuminated by the real world correlation. Only in Mesoamerica can we find the important factors of writing, city building and high cultures at the proper time depth, kings over kings, appropriate volcanics, an appropriate seasonality of warfare, armor and weapons, the influence of Teotihuacan at the time of Mormon and the final Nephite wars, the complete absence of any reference to winter snows, and the otherwise anomalous presence of oppressive heat at the New Year (remembering the conspicuous influence of severe winters on the Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s early history in Vermont). In FARMS Review 16:1, I quoted Brant Gardner?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s observation:
“The location of Zarahemla in the Grijalva River valley not only fits the geography and topography, but it links the major linguistic groups. The Nephites entered a Mayan-speaking area. The Mulekites entered a Mixe-Zoque speaking area. The movement of the Mulekites/Zarahemlaites up the Grijalva valley parallels the known movement of Zoque (a daughter language of Mixe-Zoque) up that valley. This explains why the Nephites and the Zarahemlaites spoke different languages when there was insufficient time for an unintelligible divergence from Hebrew to have occurred. (In only four hundred years some vocabulary would change, but the languages would still have been mutually intelligible.)”

Here again, reading the text against the only external context that fits the internal geographic details turns out to illuminate other aspects of the story. Vogel can argue for the descriptions of fortifications of heaped earth with wooden palisades as explaining a few passages the Book of Mormon military accounts, but not decisively, because Sorenson has shown the same kinds of fortifications in a Mesoamerican setting at the proper time depth, as illustrated in the 1984 Ensign articles and in his Visualizing the Book of Mormon.

Elsewhere, Vogel writes:

I have argued that the introduction of such apologetic devices are not true paradigm shifts, but rather are ad hoc hypotheses designed to protect the old paradigm (Book of Mormon historicity) from demise. Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of Kuhn in this effort places his writings firmly in the same genre as the Creationists.

Actually, no. My use of Kuhn and Barbour in my LDS writings has been detailed, explicit, and rigorous, more so, I believe than any other LDS writer to date. I do not use the Creationist ?¢Ç¨?ì3 step fallacy from Kuhn?¢Ç¨¬ù (as Vogel admits), and I do not merely drop Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s name and a quote or two. Rather than argue from a few high level abstractions about paradigms, I make full use of the structure, and give concrete examples to show how the structure applies to LDS debates every step of the way. Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s use of Kuhn strikes me as mere posturing (see Goff?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s essay in the FARMS Review 17:2), just as his lavish use of the ?¢Ç¨?ìad hoc?¢Ç¨¬ù label is mere sloganizing, a quick way to devalue any reading that that disagrees with his own.

Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s dismissal of Margaret Barker, even with the help of Professor Wright, is weak. He fails to consider any of the evidence for her case, and he completely overlooks the implications and importance of her approach. Indeed, I no evidence that either Wright or Vogel has read anything she has written. Recall that Wright had admitted that while Hebrews is based on older source material, he explicitly claimed that the sources for such ideas did not go back to 600 B.C.E and would not be found in a single source. Barker?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s work makes exactly that case and demonstrates that this specific prediction is false. Barker establishes that the traditions behind Hebrews, indeed, behind the origins of Christianity, do indeed go back to the First Temple and, serendipitously, to the purported time and place for the beginning of the Book of Mormon narrative. Abbreviating and restating Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s original 1993 argument, does nothing to touch what is illuminated in the entire Book of Mormon by Barker?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s extensive case. Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s approach, however rigorous, offers a narrow focus on a very few words and phrases in Alma and Hebrews. Those same phrases and all the same background texts were discussed by Welch and Tvedtnes in their responses to Wright. Going beyond a fixation on a few phrases, Barker labors to reconstruct a specific set of interrelated ideas specific to time and location in which the Book of Mormon begins. I noticed that many other themes presupposed by the Barker?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s approach also appear in Alma 13 despite none of them eliciting any notice in Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s original essays, nor in his abrupt dismissal here. Indeed, every line and theme in Alma 13 fits her picture. Wright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s approach actually explains far less of the Book of Mormon text than does Barker?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s. Your mileage may vary. Margaret herself was impressed enough to say so in public at the 2005 Joseph Smith Conference at the Library of Congress.

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA
Dan Vogel Says:
May 5th, 2006 at 7:54 PM
Whether Christensen uses Kuhn superficially or accurately isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t the issue; it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s that he uses Kuhn apologetically, as a means of weakening counter evidence. Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s appeal to Kuhn is nothing but a distraction from assessing the validity of arguments and evidence, which can be done without debating about paradigms.

For example, we can assess the validity of his proposal for Sidon River without any of Kuhn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s baggage. In fact, I have already assessed it on the FAIR board more than a month ago when Christensen presented nearly an identical post there. The major flaw in Poulson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interpretation is ?¢Ç¨?ì2. The head runs from east to west?¢Ç¨¬ù. This is based on a misreading of Alma 22:27. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not the head of the river that runs from east to west, but the wilderness. The passage is describing how the Nephites are surrounded by the wilderness:

[the land of Nephi] was divided from the land of Zarahemla
by a narrow strip of wilderness,
which ran from the sea east even to the sea west,
and round about on the borders of the seashore,
and the borders of the wilderness which was on the north by the land Zarahemla,
through the borders of Manti,
by the head of the river Sidon,
running from the east towards the west?¢Ç¨Äù
and THUS were the Lamanites and the Nephites divided.

In context, the passage describes the locations of the wilderness and does not say that the head of the river runs east to west. Poulsen distorts the passage so as to conform to his knowledge of the Grijalva River. Christensen can argue that Poulsen is interpreting the BOM from a realist paradigm all he wants, but that does not justify textual distortions.

Needless to say, Christensen?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s triumphant declaration that Poulson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interpretation amounts to ?¢Ç¨?ìdirect and decisive correlation between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica?¢Ç¨¬ù is laughable.

In my 7 April post, I also responded to his use of the Limhi expedition for supportive evidence as follows:

Your theory plays on the assumption that Limhi?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s party knew Zarahemla was somewhere along the Sidon river, but that is not at all clear from the story. You fail to mention that, according to your theory, the party traveling up the wrong river (Usamacinta) would have at some point necessarily crossed over the right river (Grijalva) in order to head (north) west to Cumorah (or the scene of Jaredite destruction). Don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t you think it would have occurred to them to travel down the other river before embarking on an aimless 250-mile off-course journey through the wilderness? The story simply doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make sense.

Christensen says that I only think Panama is a ?¢Ç¨?ìbetter?¢Ç¨¬ù fit for the BOM?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow neck?¢Ç¨¬ù than the Isthmus of Tehuantepec because of my ?¢Ç¨?ìa priori dismissal of literally hundreds of other passages from consideration.?¢Ç¨¬ù Of course, these hundreds of other passages have no direct bearing on the ?¢Ç¨?ìneck of land.?¢Ç¨¬ù What Christensen is trying to argue is that the problems of matching Tehuantepec with the ?¢Ç¨?ìneck of land?¢Ç¨¬ù should be overlooked because other less significant geographic features seem to correlate. That doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make sense.

No amount of paradigm talk will save a bad theory. Of course, a smaller geographic region is more realistic, but it doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t fit the BOM?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description. The limited geography is an ad hoc hypothesis, not because it relies on rather dubious readings of the text, but because of how it functions to protect a central thesis from counterevidence. Pre-1887 reconstructions of BOM geography were not ?¢Ç¨?ìpre-critical,?¢Ç¨¬ù but rather pre-apologetic. The point being that Book of Mormon defenders began their search for a smaller geographic area in response to criticisms of hemispheric geography. Hemispheric geography was part of the Mound Builder Myth, which informed the discourse between the book and its first readers. I have yet to see a coherent refutation of that thesis. I quote Joseph Smith and the first readers, because I believe they correctly understood the book.
John Williams Says:
May 8th, 2006 at 1:41 AM
Dan Vogel wrote:

?¢Ç¨?ìNo amount of paradigm talk will save a bad theory. Of course, a smaller geographic region is more realistic, but it doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t fit the BOM?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s description. The limited geography is an ad hoc hypothesis, not because it relies on rather dubious readings of the text, but because of how it functions to protect a central thesis from counterevidence. Pre-1887 reconstructions of BOM geography were not ?¢Ç¨?ìpre-critical,?¢Ç¨¬ù but rather pre-apologetic. The point being that Book of Mormon defenders began their search for a smaller geographic area in response to criticisms of hemispheric geography. Hemispheric geography was part of the Mound Builder Myth, which informed the discourse between the book and its first readers. I have yet to see a coherent refutation of that thesis. I quote Joseph Smith and the first readers, because I believe they correctly understood the book.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Before I respond, let me say that I like Dan, and have read his books, etc, so I hope he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ll indulge me a bit with this post.

Dan is a tireless critic (as tireless as an apologist), and, as such, he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s almost always right and wrong at the same time. So, if I could somehow dive into the simultaneous past and future, in which I have advanced to full-tenured professor (the future), and Dan Vogel is back as an undergrad at Long Beach (the past), I would take the passionate young debunker aside and give him a reading list. First, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d say, Dan, you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve got to read some Stanley Fish (start with ?¢Ç¨?ìHow to Recognize a Poem When You See One?¢Ç¨¬ù), and then maybe Richard Rorty or Jacques Derrida?¢Ç¨Äùjust to get the postmodern ball rolling. Then, Dan, maybe some Terry Eagleton or David Harvey to instill a bit of crypto-Marxist concern for the starving masses of the world who, let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s face it, don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t give a crap about whether or not the Book of Mormon is ?¢Ç¨?ìhistorical?¢Ç¨¬ù or not. The point of the reading list, I hope, would be to prepare him so that he would not be surprised (or scandalized, as he seems to be) that such ?¢Ç¨?ìad hoc?¢Ç¨¬ù explanations have surfaced about the Book of Mormon since the mid-1980s.

I say this because (and what follows is going to sound terribly obvious, but here goes), the Book of Mormon is a text. And the way this text has been interpreted from the beginning was that it had something to do with the larger population of Native Americans that were, for better or (more often) for worse, around. But since 1830 this has been an interpretation (and, in fact, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s all you can ever do with books), and it was an interpretation that carried such weight and authority that it seemed impossible to interpret it otherwise. Now, those of us doomed to be well-versed in hermeneutics know that there are always other ways of interpreting a given text, and that given a different spatio-temporal context these other ways can seem every bit as legitimate as did previous ways. Sorenson?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Limited Geographic Model came on the scene in a burst of creative energy (really, even if you think he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s wrong, you have to admire the frenetic creativity going on there), and gave us a way of reading the book that was consistent with?¢Ç¨Äùor, if not that, at least ?¢Ç¨?ìfriendlier?¢Ç¨¬ù to the mounting archeological and anthropological evidence that scholars had been amassing throughout the twentieth century indicating that Native Americans are not at all Israelites. But Sorensen, let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s remember, was only ever tentative. The scientific discourses to which he was accommodating his faith were themselves fraught with disagreement and scholarly speculation. Now, however, with DNA, a new kind of legitimacy seems to be on the table. DNA evidence is ?¢Ç¨?ìsexy.?¢Ç¨¬ù It arrives in this discussion at a time when it has gained a foothold in everything from the courtroom to the talk-show. It seems completely irrefutable, if only because so few people even know how it works to begin with. And because the Mormon elite (since Brigham Young at least) have been in love with the idea that their religion is as epistemologically sound as, say, geology or mathematics, the scholarly consensus that Native Americans are in fact Asian Americans meant that Sorenson, who had only ever proposed a tentative possibility, has suddenly become (at least for the tiny coterie of a Mormon intellectual vanguard) absolutely crucial. The DNA love-child of Sorenson and Mesoamerica, then, is Blake Ostler, who not only says that limited geography is ?¢Ç¨?ìanother?¢Ç¨¬ù way of interpreting the Book of Mormon, but indeed, the only way of interpreting the text that is ?¢Ç¨?ìconsistent?¢Ç¨¬ù with itself. But, of course, Ostler is as wrong as Vogel. There is not, and will never ever be, just one way of interpreting the Book of Mormon. If, for example, someone tomorrow discovered some ancient fossils with the phonetic sounds for ?¢Ç¨?ìNephi?¢Ç¨¬ù scrawled on them somewhere in Indonesia, you can bet someone at FARMS would be hot on the trail!

One has to be impressed with the lengths (and the shorts) to which people will go to ?¢Ç¨?ìscientifically?¢Ç¨¬ù prove or disprove the BofM, but I suspect that Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s appeals to a ?¢Ç¨?ìcorrect?¢Ç¨¬ù reading of the text (as when he says, ?¢Ç¨?ìI quote Joseph Smith and the first readers, because I believe they correctly understood the book.?¢Ç¨¬ù) will have to move beyond Joseph Smith and the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s initial reception. For Mormon apologists today, it no longer matters what Joseph Smith thought of the book, which means that Vogel can only ever be engaged in a contest of interpretations. At the end of the day, the question will be not what did Joseph Smith think, but whose interpretation is the most convincing now? Who is the closest reader of the book?

Still, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean to discourage either side. My own opinion about the Book of Mormon, and its historicity, has changed, so it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s definitely possible to persuade the persuadable.
Don Bradley Says:
May 15th, 2006 at 7:41 PM
Hi,

This message is for Tim Griffy.

Tim, I’d very much like a copy of your paper ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Environmental Theory of Book of Mormon Interpretation.?¢Ç¨¬ù I don’t have your current e-mail address. Mine hasn’t changed, and I’m still on LLM.

Don Bradley
Timothy A. Griffy Says:
May 20th, 2006 at 12:05 AM
I wrote:
I begin by affirming as clearly as possible my beliefs about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is truly the word of God, and Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God. Beyond that, nothing else matters. The issues of authorship and dating for this scripture are relevant only for interpreting the work. If an unambiguous statement from Joseph Smith stating he wrote the Book of Mormon from whole cloth were found tomorrow, it would not affect my faith. Likewise, if a proverbial ?¢Ç¨?ìWelcome to Zarahemla?¢Ç¨¬ù sign were found, it would not affect my faith.

And Stephen M. responded:
Reminds me of the very pragmatic nature of twelve step programs. People who have encountered a higher power, but who are extremely relaxed in their possible definitions of it (nothing like hearing an athiest talk about the ?¢Ç¨?ìgod of his understanding?¢Ç¨¬ù).

If the spiritual connection has occurred, the rest of the issues are transformed.
Timothy A. Griffy Says:
May 20th, 2006 at 12:34 AM
(with apologies for submitting too soon)
I wrote:
I begin by affirming as clearly as possible my beliefs about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon is truly the word of God, and Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God. Beyond that, nothing else matters. The issues of authorship and dating for this scripture are relevant only for interpreting the work. If an unambiguous statement from Joseph Smith stating he wrote the Book of Mormon from whole cloth were found tomorrow, it would not affect my faith. Likewise, if a proverbial ?¢Ç¨?ìWelcome to Zarahemla?¢Ç¨¬ù sign were found, it would not affect my faith.

Stephen M. responded:
Reminds me of the very pragmatic nature of twelve step programs. People who have encountered a higher power, but who are extremely relaxed in their possible definitions of it (nothing like hearing an athiest talk about the ?¢Ç¨?ìgod of his understanding?¢Ç¨¬ù).

If the spiritual connection has occurred, the rest of the issues are transformed.

I answer:
I acknowledge the pragmatic effect of my statement, but it should be noted that the pratical value was not my primary consideration in making my declaration. In my case, I would say that the issues were not transformed by the spiritual connection. Rather, it was a reciprocal process. I found a spiritual connection, which led me to seek a better understanding of Scripture, which strengthened the spiritual connection, which continues to lead me to seek a better understanding of Scripture.

The reciprocal process is illustrated in my spiritual journey. I experienced something I cannot deny–God speaking to me through the Bible. I learned something I also could not deny–the Bible is quite errant. I resolved that problem by transforming the issues, and once those issues had been transformed, I looked at the Book of Mormon with new eyes. Then another spiritual connection occurred.

I don’t know if I have an extremely relaxed view of divinity, at least when talking strictly about myself. Despite my stance on the historicity of modern Scripture (or my stances on ancient Scripture for that matter), I would consider myself fairly orthodox when it comes to Mormonism’s theological traditions. That would underscore my belief that there would be little effect in separating the issues of historicity and truth. The corollary to that statement is that the message is more important than the messenger and even the medium.
Gordon Hill Says:
May 21st, 2006 at 9:23 AM
It’s good to hear from like minded people, we are a minority. I do not believe that any religion is inspired but I do believe in god. I’ve had some experiences that could only be explained with god as a part of the equation.
I feel very unwelcome at church but I went there yesterday to give blood for my home teachers eagle project. It was nice meeting my old church friends but I know I can never go back. It still seems stultifying to believe in things that are so demonstrably untrue.

badmormon
Trevor S. Luke Says:
May 23rd, 2006 at 9:28 AM
A SEER IS GREATER THAN A PROPHET

What an interesting thread. One particular item caught my eye: the definition of prophet. Vogel claims that Joseph defined the word prophet very narrowly as one who has a testimony of Jesus. Rees objects to this by correctly pointing out that Mormons today would not accept such a narrow definition. So true, but I agree with Vogel in thinking that Mormons may be open to different interpretations, namely those informed by historical research into Joseph Smith’s views and by careful interpretation of LDS scriptures.

I propose that we look more closely at the Book of Mormon’s use of the words seer and prophet as a way of getting past objections to Vogel’s position on Joseph’s definition of ‘prophet.’ I apologize in advance if this is ‘old hat.’

In Mosiah chapter 8, king Limhi inquires of Ammon whether he can translate the 24 plates of gold that his explorers had found on a journey to locate a new home for Limhi’s people. Ammon replies that he cannot translate but that he knows someone who can:

“I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer.” (13)

In response to this information, Limhi exclaims in wonder, “a seer is greater than a prophet,” (15) to which Ammon replies, “a seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God” (16).

The Book of Mormon thus defines what a seer is as distinct from the prophet. While the seer is a revelator and prophet, a prophet is not necessarily a seer. Seership is defined as the greatest gift, and one of its defining characteristics is the command of God to translate ancient records with “interpreters.”

Today the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the twelve are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators.” Unless we are to understand this as nothing more than a flowery pleonasm, it would seem to suggest that, in keeping with distinctions between prophet and seer which occur both in the OT and the BoM, the Church still recognizes a difference between ’seer’ and ‘prophet.’

Whether or not one considers the Book of Mormon an ancient document, one must consider Mosiah 8 as revealing of Joseph’s understanding of the role of the seer. As one who had some practice finding hidden objects (…by them…shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light[17]), Joseph doubtless could identify with the seer as he is described by Ammon.

In everyday LDS parlance the distinction between ‘prophet’ and ’seer’ is little observed. After all, all of the Church’s highest leaders are sustained as both, so for us there is functionally little difference, and to call someone a prophet covers all the bases well enough. I do not believe, however, that a young Joseph ‘translating’ or ‘writing’ the Book of Mormon necessarily saw things the same way. If a seer is a prophet, but a prophet is not necessarily a seer (especially when he does not possess interpreters and has not been commanded of God to translate), then it is conceivable that Joseph asserted a narrow definition of prophet, like that identified by Vogel.

By defining prophet in the narrow terms Vogel has identified, however, Joseph was not thereby limiting his own self-definition. After all, he, in Book of Mormon terms, was a seer, which included being a revelator and prophet too.
Scot Greetham Says:
May 28th, 2006 at 10:07 PM
Hi Dan,

It was a pleasant surprise listening to your story on Mormon Stories Podcast when I realized I knew you because I used to be in a class of yours at UVSC. That class was many years ago but I wanted to tell you I always thought you were a great teacher. I learned so much in your class. As a matter of fact it was an article you had us read, don’t ask me which, that helped me gain a much greater testimony about God. You had us read essays on the existence of God (something like that) by various philosophers. Something really clicked. It wasn’t the article itself but the content made me really think. Since then I have had a “logic” approach to the gospel, so to speak.

I never even thought about reading Sunstone till I discovered you were the editor. It now gives me good reason. Thanks to John D. my testimony was shook up a bit but using those reasoning skills you taught me so long ago I got through it and feel stronger because of it. I think the spirit had something to do with it too. Hopefully I’ll be a stage 5 soon.

Anyhow, I want you to know that since your class I’ve never stopped thinking. I’ve even started a new blog but it is so new with nothing on it yet. I am realizing that I am not a writer at all, but I will have a few things to say as time goes on.

Thanks again, I’ll be reading!
Scot

PS. At the present I am living with my wife in Los Angeles and working for Apple Computer.
Rory Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 1:21 PM
Note: This blog references articles in the current issue, mailed to subscribers on May 24. This issue should be arriving in your mailbox this week.
Fred Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 3:05 PM
I often read stories about the so-called courage it takes for a gay man or a lesbian woman to acknowledge who they are, and leave their families.

From my perspective, there is nothing courageous about leaving a spouse and children to pursue homosexuality. That said, I think it cowardly of anyone–gay or straight–to leave a marriage simply because “they have changed” and now feel duty bound to pursue a new life that goes against what culture demands.

My cousin learned first hand of the pain and suffering caused when a spouse leaves a marriage to pursue a homosexual life. I struggle to comprehend the so-called courage it took for her ex-husband to view homosexual pornography on their home computer; the extra-marital affairs he had while she was pregnant; and abandoning her while she was giving birth to their son. Moreover, when he ceased to fulfill his obligations to his son when he quit paying his child support, how could that be considered courageous?

Your description of people who “are just trying to live and be happy, to have a meaningful life and someone to share it with” is an oversimplification to a problem that destroys families.

If you want to study the impact of decisions, I would ask that you visit with someone like my cousin, who can share her side of the story. The side of the story where one spouse simply tries to live with the selfish decision of a partner who lied and shirked his responsibility as a husband and father.
Nicholas S. Literski Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 3:55 PM
Fred, I truly do sympathize with your cousin’s unfortunate situation. As the friend who Rory said faced a choice between “coming out” vs. “talking to the business end of a gun,” however, I would like to comment from the other side of the coin.

In 18 years of marriage, I prayed and fasted countless times that deity would “fix” my growing “problem” of being sexually and emotionally attracted to men. I confess that those desires sometimes found expression on the Internet, as they did with your former cousin-in-law. Unlike him, I tried to honor the covenants I had made, and remained faithful to my marriage. When I was younger, these desires were primarily physical, and easier to set aside. As I matured, however, the emotional aspect of these attractions became much more prominent.

Fred, I eventually found myself physically unable to respond to my wife sexually, let alone to fulfill her emotional needs. This was a grossly unfair situation for her, which she certainly never bargained for. Our marriage became filled with criticism and resentment over the years, much of which I now believe was due to *my* subconsciously blaming her, as if she was somehow keeping me from what I needed and wanted. We were no longer lovers. We were barely friends.

I finally reached a point in my own maturity, Fred, where I could no longer face living the rest of my life without loving, and being loved, in the way I needed and desired. After a dozen or more years of actively fighting against my natural creation, I chose to remove myself from the covenants I had entered into, and to pursue happiness in living true to myself.

As for myself, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief and peace—precisely the things that are supposed to be “fruits of the spirit.” In the freedom to express such an important part of who I am, I have discovered a greater ability to treat others with love and kindness. I have learned to appreciate friendships more than ever before. Most importantly, I am happier–and I like myself more—than I can ever honestly remember.

I don’t pretend that my life is perfect, but this much I know. My ex-wife and I are more friendly toward each other now than we had been for many years. My children have naturally had some struggles, but I fulfill my financial responsibilities toward them and try to remain a close, involved father to them. Yes, life would have been easier for several people, if I had been mature enough at the age of twenty-one to figure out what I finally understood about myself at age thirty-nine. That much I can’t undo. What I CAN do, however, is be an example to my children and those around me, of being true to oneself, especially when it is inconvenient.

I hope that your cousin is able to find healing, Fred. I also hope for her, what I earnestly hope for my own ex-wife: that she finds someone in her life who can love and cherish her in the way she deserves.
annegb Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Rory, I took something different from your essay, not homosexuality as an issue, but the shooting off your mouth. You could be telling my story. I get so wrapped up in the debate I forget people are involved, feelings.
Rory Says:
May 30th, 2006 at 6:00 PM
Fred:

Thank you for taking the time to comment here, I hope this turns into a fruitful discussion.

After reading your comments and also some private correspondence from a friend, I want to clarify something about my post: I don’t see the story of Steven Fales or others that are similar as positive or that the dissolution of a family is something to celebrate, far from it. But I do see strength in the way some are dealing with the realities, the demands, and the incredible pain. And while I did not use the term courage, I do see courage in the willingness of people like Steven and Emily ?¢Ç¨Äú and now Nick – to share their stories in a very public forum.

You write:

Your description of people who ?¢Ç¨?ìare just trying to live and be happy, to have a meaningful life and someone to share it with?¢Ç¨¬ù is an oversimplification to a problem that destroys families.

Perhaps – but what is the problem? Is it homosexuality? Is it pornography? Or is it the cultural demands that push young people into making decisions that affect both them and others in profound and lasting ways? I would argue, now, that it is the unrealistic demands based in a faulty understanding of biological makeup.

I would hope that you take the time to read Emily Pearson’s article, she has lived this and knows the experience in ways that we can only imagine, and she has some very thoughtful perspectives. I found her comment that if she hadn’t married Steven, they “never would have had the children [they] had – and a world without them is not a place in which [she] can imagine living” to be particularly powerful.

Your cousin didn’t deserve what happened to her. It’s unfair and wrong. I, too, hope she finds peace, fulfillment, and someone to love and cherish her. Her experience is now hers forever, and nothing can change that. We can, however, hope to cultivate a culture wherein this doesn’t have to happen to others.

Nick: Thanks for commenting ?¢Ç¨Äú you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve been very open and eloquent.

Annegb: Yes, I try to be more circumspect now. I’m not always successful, but I try. I felt strongly about the issue when I shot my mouth off some 13 years ago, but that does not excuse my scoring rhetorical points at the expense of others, nor did it make me right.
Rick Says:
May 31st, 2006 at 2:35 PM
I have to agree with Fred’s sentiment on this. I have an overwhelming desire to have sex with female neighbors, co-workers, women at church, my wife’s friends and sisters, and pretty much any female biped not related to be by less than two degrees.

So…..how “brave” would it be of me to walk away from the comittment I have to my wife and two children just because I could no longer deny the player impulse?

The beauty (and bravery) of marriage is the willingness to submit to it…the comitment made to stick with it despite life’s distractions and impulses. Everyone has those, so why celebrate a certain group of society for giving into them?
Fred Says:
May 31st, 2006 at 3:49 PM
Rory,

Admittedly homosexuality is something I don’t understand. Are they born that way? Or is it a “lifestyle” choice? I can’t and won’t say.

I feel some level of empathy and compassion for those who have same-sex attraction. I do not wish anyone ill will or harm.

Like Rick points out, however, just because we may have an attraction, doesn’t mean we should be able to act on that attraction. An oversimplification? Perhaps, but it’s the best I can do in a short amount of time.

For now, rather than get into a big long disagreement, I’ll remember that we are all God’s children and we have been give the admonition to “love one another”.
Stephen M (Ethesis) Says:
May 31st, 2006 at 6:45 PM
Hmm, the scripts on this page ate my last post, but this link captures the other side, and was the post I was referring to:

http://exponentblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/making-sense-of-sunday.html
Rick Says:
May 31st, 2006 at 11:19 PM
it was an oversimplification….and I think came off a little jerky. I was at work. : (
Rory Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 9:09 AM
I appreciate the comments here. I do want to draw out one aspect of the post that I hope isn’t lost in my writing: the effect on others, not just the individual who is homosexual.

With the debate raging among a number of different blogs, I hope we consider that pushing someone with SSA into a heterosexual relationship doesn’t simply relegate that individual to a lifetime of struggle to conform to our expectations, it also impacts in untold ways the heterosexual spouse.

I’ve perused the other blogs and I see some very thoughtful struggles. I also see some statements that are completely baffling. For example, one blogger writes that “legalized gay marriage will present a roadblock to [gay members] eternal progress…instead of them finding a way to obtain their eternal potential through alternate (read: opposite-sex marriage) means.”

The parenthetical comment is in the original, I did not add it.

Such statements are incredibly glib and perpetuate an environment in which people like Fred’s cousin, Nick’s ex-wife, or Ms. Pearson find themselves in relationships where the homosexual spouse can be respectful and loving, but where the desire, the connection, the intimacy is simply not there.
Our empathy should extend to all involved, as this affects both our brothers and sisters with SSA and those without. It is not a gay issue. It is our issue.
Nicholas S. Literski Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 3:07 PM
Rick is certainly correct in saying that we all choose whether to pursue our desires. Soon after I “came out,” I was confronted with an LDS man who was upset with me. He made the same connection that Rick has, and told me, “Well, I may be tempted to drink alcohol, but that doesn’t mean it’s okay for me to do it!” Rick may have oversimplified a bit, but at least he didn’t compare it to thirst for a beer.

I would merely add one dimension to your analogy, Rick. Imagine for a moment (no matter how ludicrous it may seem to you) that the church taught that you must be sexually intimate with another man, in order to be exalted. Imagine yourself, as an apparently 100% heterosexual man, being actually required to have sex with another man, in order to have the acceptance of deity and your fellow church members.

Given such a situation, Rick, a few men (homosexuals) would be just fine. Some other men would “grin and bear it,” not being excited by what they were doing, but doing it because it was “the right thing to do.” Some men would want to be obedient, but would find themselves physically unable to respond to another man. Still others would be utterly repulsed by the very thought. Can you sense, in some way, the conflict that would exist in your own mind and heart?

Please also understand that true homosexual desire is not just for sex, but for *emotional* intimacy with another man—just like you want to be emotionally intimate with a woman. That emotional need can be much more powerful than the physical.

One more brief point:
Rory says that we should be considering the effect on the woman who has found herself married to a gay man. I won’t sit here and pretend that I left my ex-wife out of some altruistic sacrifice for her happiness. I unquestionably left in order to fulfill my own needs. That said, however, how fair was it to this good woman to be connected to a man who was emotionally incapable of loving and cherishing her, with all the intimacy and satisfaction she deserved? One major influence in my finally “coming out” was when I reached a point that I could no longer manage to be aroused by my ex-wife’s attentions. Was I to go through the rest of my life in a state of celibacy? Worse yet, was SHE to go through the rest of her life in a state of celibacy, with her need for physical and emotional intimacy “held hostage,” so to speak, by MY inability? This was the “giant red flag” that made me realize I had to deal with the situation–that what I knew I felt could no longer effectively be ignored or denied.
Rick Says:
June 1st, 2006 at 6:41 PM
you know, I didn’t mean to come off as such a bastard. i do see where you are coming from, and I think that divorce is very often the best thing for a couple.

Nonetheless, I have a hard time celbrating the bravery of ending marriage. If you want to call it a tragedy…that i can agree with. And perhaps the greater tragedy is that so many people feel compelled to make a bad marriage…feel pressure to conform to an expectation.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:37 PM
Rick (#6): I don’t want to pile on, but your “example” here in #6 is lame and entirely misses the point. Nick already eloquently responded to your point, and you seem to have backed off of it a little, but let me add a couple of things…

After the natural will to live/survive, the natural will to connect to and love another human being (with its accompanying intimacy and sexuality) is likely the most basic and strong and innate. Nobody is requiring you to subvert your will in this regard, but you seem to be asking homosexuals to do the same, and then you compare it to your heroic efforts to subvert your will to sleep with women other than your wife. Please.

When you get a chance you should check out a recent Dialogue article by Robert Rees: http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/38-4a.pdf

Your suggestion seems to leave homosexuals with a choice between celibacy or suicide (or as Nick pointed out, grin-and-bear-it sex with a person you aren’t attracted to.) Rees says:

“In Quiet Desperation” seems to offer little acceptable choice between Stuart Matis’s suicide and Ty Mansfield’s celibacy. In a way this seems strange in a church that historically has rejected both options. That is, suicide traditionally has been considered a major transgression, and celibacy (certainly as it has been practiced by Catholic priests) disparaged as a consious life choice. The historic encouragement that LDS homosexuals marry is evidence of the rejection of celibacy. The fact remains that most Latter-day Saint homosexuals do not find either suicide or celibacy acceptable choices. Most choose a place somewhere in between, a choice accompanied, despite accusations of their “selfishness” by great anguish of soul and their personal sacrifice of intimate involvement in the life of the Church and often of closeness to their families.”

Further on, Rees says:

“…the life of sanctified devotion and sacrifice (i.e. celibacy) that he articulates as the ideal for Latter-day Saint homosexuals seems to require an almost perfect adherence to the highest standard of Christian behavior, a standard which, by the way, those who treat homosexuals as less than fully human fail to reach!”

I could never do what you flippantly ask Nick (or any homosexual) to do. If the roles were reversed, could you?

Well, I said I didn’t mean to “pile on” and I did. I guess I can come off like a bastard too. As you (and Fred) rightly point out, there is another side to many of these stories. The fallout and collateral damage is truly tragic. But healing cannot and will never occur unless the issue is acknowledged and dealt with head on. That takes courage for everyone: the homosexual, the spouse, the kids, the extended family, the ward family, and the Church as a whole.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 6:41 PM
Let me add that Nick Literski is hardly a hero. In fact, he can be a loudmouthed, opinionated, son of a bitch much of the time.
Rick Says:
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:15 PM
didn’t mean to pile????

Listen dude, I already said that I had oversimplified, already acknowledged I was being a bastard, and already stated that–to me–the underlying tragedy is that so many people feel societal pressure to make marriages that are doomed from the get go.

but seriously, if you make a commitment to a person…and if you believe it’s in front of God, angels, and witnesses……it’s a serious deal.

many, many, many marriages have cold spells where intimacy is lost. I cheapened the issue (and pissed off my wife) by reducing it to an exaggeration about my libido. So, it’s my fault that the discussion is siderailed.

but honestly, if I fall out of love with my wife, if I fall in love with another woman (or another man), if some old flame resurfaces, if my wife has a stroke and ends up unconscious on a ventelator for months…….i still made that comitment.

Again, if you want to call it a tragedy that homosexual men end up leaving their families…I’m cool with that. but there is nothing whatsoever to celebrate…and I feel that many people try to do just that.
Simonbinet Says:
June 3rd, 2006 at 1:41 AM
?¢Ç¨?ìWe are arguing like a man who should say, ?¢Ç¨Àúif there were an invisible cat in that chair, the chair would look empty; but the chair does look empty; therefore there is an invisible cat in it.?¢Ç¨Ñ¢?¢Ç¨¬ù C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

According to Moroni, the Book of Mormon prophet, God is more than willing to impart the knowledge of the truth of the Book of Mormon (Which knowledge also is inclusive of the spiritual confirmation of the existence of the dubious Moroni himself- logic that is admittedly somewhat circular) to any who ask. According to Moroni, the spirit will give them a burning feeling that the Book of Mormon is true (and thus that Moroni himself is real)

This kind of logic is closely related to Epimede?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s paradox. ?¢Ç¨?ìAll people from the island of Crete are liars. I am from the island of Crete?¢Ç¨¬ù. So is he a liar or not? Similarly, the fictional Moroni counsels us to find out that he is real by his own standards of proof, and we must believe in him in order to try his methods. Sadly, by all other methods, Moroni, the Book of Mormon , and the rest of the story are very dubious.

It is an interesting fact that the first piece of questionable logic in the determination of the truth of the church is one that is hiding in plain sight. It is the logic that the truth of anything can be known for certain by praying and subsequently feeling spiritual confirmation concerning the subject of our prayers, and that this is the most certain of all methods of determination. In fact, this is a pivotal Mormon doctrine, used to test the Mormon church, and the one doctrine upon which rests the testimonies of all those who would go forward in the face of almost infinite improbability. This is an assumption that is not at all logical, and not at all proven. If indeed it were true, there would be no little lost boys in the Uintah Mountains, and temple worthy stockbrokers would make Gentile (and Jewish) money managers look like idiots.

Is it really true that one can divine facts in this way? Maybe so, but that method has yet to be proven to be very reliable in practice, and it cannot be proven by its own logic. One cannot say that one knows that one can divine whether or not one gets a true confirmation of facts– evidenced by a good feeling in one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s breast– by praying about such a method and then getting a good feeling in one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s breast, thus showing that one can get a good feeling in one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s breast about things that are true, due to the fact that one just got a good feeling after praying about getting a good feeling. (which good feeling has to be attributable to the Holy Ghost of course) Such dizzy reasoning is totally flawed, and nothing at all is proved, especially if we keep in mind that feeling good about anything can even be a self induced experience. It should be at the very least supposed that one should first test this pivotal spiritual test of getting a ?¢Ç¨?ìconfirmation from the spirit about things that are true?¢Ç¨¬ù against its accuracy in divining the truth of knowable and provable things before dedicating one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s life to its verity in knowing the unprovable. Certainly this method of divining truth has not shown itself to be very reliable method throughout history, but as Hofstadter says regarding proving spiritualism such as ESP in his G?É¬?del Escher and Bach, maybe ESP just doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t work when we are trying to prove it. Maybe praying to know the truth only works when asking for evidence about that which is unprovable.

At the end of all this, it all boils down to our choice to beleive. Those who insist that they know that the Cat exists make that choice, and they know simply because they need to know. Maybe I am one of them

Simon
Bro. Jones Says:
June 5th, 2006 at 7:24 AM
Rick–you may have oversimplified, but you put it in a way that I could sympathize with. Now that I think about it, it’s actually even MORE rare to hear LDS heterosexual men talk openly about their interest in sex than, well, LDS homosexual men. Both are rare, but I’ve at least heard from a couple of LDS LGB folks. It’s interesting that LDS tend to “counter” homosexuality with arguments and rhetoric that are almost devoid of their own sexuality, and I found it refreshing to read something a little different. I for one salute you.

Nick–for what it’s worth, you seem to have handled your own situation with as much dignity and respect as possible. It’s a difficult issue with no “clean” resolution. I know two gay LDS men who recently married women, and one has confided to me that despite what he had hoped, he still has homosexual inclinations. (Surprise!) I don’t know how things will work for them now or in the future, and all I can do is be compassionate.
Emily Pearson Says:
June 6th, 2006 at 5:20 PM
I am loving reading these blog postings! I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the break up of a marriage is tragic. But in my opinion, regarding the marriage of gays to straights, the real tragedy is that they happen in the first place.

The cost, to BOTH partners, is a slow and painful emotional death and the near destruction of any sense of self. It ain’t worth it. Trust me.

Nicholas & Fred, let your ex-wife & cousin know about Wildflowers. The support these women give each other is incredible. If they want to contact me at emily@emilypearson.net. I would love to give them our info. Or they can look us up at http://www.wearewildflowers.com
Rick Says:
June 6th, 2006 at 6:37 PM
I definately agree that the true tragedy is the marriages happening in the first place…particularly if the union is pressured from the outside.
annegb Says:
June 6th, 2006 at 8:32 PM
Geez, Emily, put your e-mail up there, I’m a stalker, and your mom’s biggest fan. You are risking a lot .

I actually wrote your mom a letter a few years back, thanking her for a poem and she wrote back referring to us (me and her) as “Mormon maveriks.” Indeed.

I loved her book about your father. “Gerald shone.”

I also enjoy your fuzzy red bathrobe book. I use it for my blog on Fridays. I don’t think I get the meme thing, but anyway. My daughter and I loved the book and then my husband and I used it, too.
annegb Says:
June 6th, 2006 at 8:34 PM
Rory, I am so bad about scoring points. I forget the topic in an attempt to just win. People get hurt that way. Thanks for the reminder.
Rob Briggs Says:
June 9th, 2006 at 6:17 PM
“It was the long-overdue realization that policies, ideas, and laws have dramatic and real impact on the lives of individuals. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s one thing to debate in a black and white forum, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s another to see the effects of that debate in full-blown color.”

After ~ three decades of law practice, I am continually fascinated by the American impulse to “fix things” but passing a law.

The impulse, of course, comes from the fact that where other cultures have commonalities and cultural institutions & mores besides law to reinforce their values, the U.S. has cultural diversity with no common cultural institutions or mores to reinforce ours. So we fall back on the only institution apparently left to us, the law.

Many of these laws have little practical effect but we insist on doing it for their symbolic value. We pass laws to make symbolic statements. Thus, the most recent speechifying about adding a Marriage Amendment to the Constitution. From my perspective, I don’t see the real world point. But I understand the perceived need to make such symbolic statements through the law.

As others have pointed out, however, many times these laws & the symbolic statements they implicitly make fail to take into account the havoc wrought in the lives of real people.
Nat Whilk Says:
June 15th, 2006 at 8:52 PM
Wow. Nick Literski is one of the last persons I’d expect to be saying the things he’s saying in this thread. Google Usenet for his name and the subject at hand, and you’ll see why.

It’s hard not to see his legal training at work in the analogy he posits in #11. Since what the modern Church asks of those with same-sex attraction is celibacy, one might expect him to do what other like-minded souls have done: to ask heterosexuals how they’d like to live celibately for years and years. But Nick is apparently savvy enough to realize that hundreds of thousands of Saints without SSA are doing just that, so that analogy won’t hit home. Instead he asks us to contemplate being pressured into homosexual acts, an image he can count on to cause us to react the way the Simpson kids react when they have to go stay with Aunt Patty and Aunt Thelma. Never mind that his current story sounds less like he was running away from his wife’s advances than like he was running toward whatever intimate male companionship an ex-Mormon in Nauvoo can manage to find. Or that the, um, analogous analogy when applied to other sexual attractions the Church considers disordered would provoke similar Simpsonian shudders. It’s visceral and it works if you don’t overanalyze it, and those are surely things that go over well with juries.
SunstoneBlog.com » SunstonePodcast #010?¢Ç¨ÄúMormon Mantras: A Journey of Spiritual Transformation Says:
June 15th, 2006 at 11:02 PM
[...] How to Listen to our Podcasts [...]
Rick Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 9:58 AM
That was a bitter post…..you an ex-girlfriend or something?
Nat Whilk Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 10:22 AM
…quoth the paragon of rational argumentation.
Rory Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Welcome, Nat, to the SunstoneBlog.

I don’t know that I can fault Nick for taking different positions on Usenet years ago than the ones he takes today. He’s gone through a great deal of change and upheaval recently, and his candor here is appreciated.

We all change as we grow – sometimes better, sometimes worse, but I think it unreasonable to expect any of us to grow without that growth reflecting in our beliefs and attitudes.

There may be an ultimate or single truth, but in our imperfect state we cannot expect to know it in its entirety, no matter how much we might insist that we do.

Again, welcome, and I’m looking forward to your future interactions here.
Nicholas S. Literski Says:
June 16th, 2006 at 4:22 PM
Great post, Nat, though you honestly give me too much credit for sophistry. As you point out, the analogy is imperfect at best. I was not, however, writing with the cold, calculating hand of the lawyer arguing a case. Instead, I was speaking from the heart, and trying to convey the frustration that is felt by many gay men who believe the teachings of LDS-ism and are trying to live by them. If anything, I was trying to point out that the argument of “Well, I resist such-and-such sin, so you should resist” tends to minimize the issue as it is experienced by gay men in the church.

I’m flattered that you would take the time to look into my other comments on the Internet, past and present. Most of those comments in regard to homosexuality were made at a time when I knew what I felt inside, but conveniently equated the words “gay” and “homosexual” ONLY with those who were acting on their homoerotic desires. Since I was not engaging in sexual acts with other men, I told myself I wasn’t gay or homosexual. I may see that as self-deceptive rationalization NOW, but I didn’t see it for what it was back THEN. I think there was also a bit of pride mixed in, too. After all, it was SO EASY for me to sit back on my haunches and judge those who engaged in homosexual acts, since *I* was faithful to my wife—nevermind all those things Jesus said about what we’ve already done in our hearts!

We grow, Nat. Sometimes it takes us a while.
Nat Whilk Says:
June 17th, 2006 at 10:05 AM
Nick:

I didn’t have to take any time to look into your Internet past; I was there as it happened, including the progress reports on your legal career, your temple book, etc. As to your growth in the meantime, your old arguments were of a logical form, not an experiential one. While your subsequent experience of the pleasures of man-love may have rocked your world, it’s unlikely to have changed the rules of logic. Of course, those old arguments were premised on the fundamental truth claims of the Church, and once you abandon those, anything goes, I suppose. (The concluding rhyme was unintentional, not an excerpt from my upcoming verse translation of The Brothers Karamazov.)
Mike Hess Says:
June 19th, 2006 at 3:39 PM
Hey Dan,

I live in Las Vegas, NV. Currently retired. My oldest daughter, who lives in Pocatello, ID, gave me a subscription to Sunstone for Father’s Day this year. I’m looking forward to my first issue.

While browsing “sunstoneblog.com” I listened to a very interesting podcast between you and Dan McLemore. I want you to know that I’m going to begin tomorrow morning with a meditation exercise. I will give it a good sincere effort. If one is persistent, I’m convinced that certain “mantras” can be very beneficial in helping us to know God.

I listened to the entire podcast. Thanks for making that available.

Best, Mike Hess
SunstoneBlog.com » SunstonePodcast #011?¢Ç¨ÄúIrreconcilable Differences: Emily Pearson Tells Her Story Says:
June 22nd, 2006 at 2:00 PM
[...] How to Listen to our Podcasts [...]
Gordon Banks Says:
June 26th, 2006 at 3:14 PM
iTunes is having trouble downloading both podcasts 10 & 11. It gets about 40% done and then sticks. This has been going on for about 2 weeks on 10 and now 11 also has that problem. Is there an alternative way to download? (No, I don’t have time to listen to it play on my computer).
Anita Torres Says:
June 26th, 2006 at 6:34 PM
Perhaps one of the most poignant issues here is rather or not a person has the right to leave a marriage if there is a fundamental incompatablility that is seemingly impossible to resolve. Sexual incompatibility because or a homosexual orientation would certainly fit in that category. But the question is the same for other people with other issues and i would like to say that I believe we all have the right to be happy in our life. If a marriage is unlikely to ever make us happy then I think we owe it to ourselves, our spouse and our children to make that difficult decision that may cause pain in the short term but gives all concerned a better chance for happiness in the long term. I don’t think there is a marriage in history where one person can be happy and the other miserable. The misery catches up eventually. I honestly don’t know if we can call it “courageous” to break a promise and abandon a marriage, but I know from my own experience, it isn’t any easier on the one making the decision than it is on the person on the receiving end of the decision. I hope you don’t mind my departing a bit from the topic……
annegb Says:
June 27th, 2006 at 9:00 AM
I don’t mind, Anita, can’t speak for anybody else. I think you make a very good point.

I think there are people out there who stay married and miserable. I know some of them. Actually sometimes I am one of them, but then, we all are.
I know you’re talking about something else.

If I’d stayed married to my second husband much longer than I did, one of us would have killed the other. Literally, I’m not joking.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 29th, 2006 at 1:22 PM
My cynical answer to your last three questions: No, No, and Yes.

Here’s why…

As long as we maintain our elitist truth/faith/religion worldview (i.e. “one true Church”; “only living prophet of God”, etc.), then the truth and insights of our neighbor’s tent will be nothing more than a distant afterthought.

Put it this way: If the Mormon Spiritual “To Do” list were a 10 page book with 20 items on each page, and the items were ranked in order of importance, you’d find Proclaiming the Gospel, Perfecting the Saints, Keeping the Commandments, Reading the Scriptures, somewhere on page 1, and FHE and Hometeaching somewhere on page 2 or 3, and Kimball Gardens and Years Supply of Food somewhere on page 4 or 5… eventually you might stumble upon “examining the truth and insights of our neighbor” on page 9 or 10.

What is the incentive? To the TBM, examining the truth in our neighbor’s tent is like working on a Commodore Vic-20 when you already have a Power Mac G5.

I may be too cynical, but even if Mormons show interest in our neighbor’s faith/truth, isn’t there always an underlying ulterior motive? Isn’t it just a placating move on our part until we can share our own deeper light and knowledge? Do we ever just listen “to what they might have to offer” just for the sake of our own enlightenment? Not if you believe–or “know”–you are already enlightened. We recognize of course that we need to work on obedience and faith… but truth? Hey, we already got that.
Stephen Carter Says:
June 29th, 2006 at 2:21 PM
Matt’s thoughts very much mirror my own. And he puts it so well.

Another approach might be the fundamental clash between a church’s two basic functions. The first, I think, is to maintain social order. To lay down the rules and create an atmosphere where disobeying the rules is uncomfortable. To do that, a church need a stable set of premises, if the premises change too often people get confused and order starts to break down. So the church has a stable set of premises right now, it doesn’t want to ruin a good thing by allowing any Tom Dick or Harry to drag a new truth through the door.

The second function is to provide a context for people to think about spiritual matters. This fuction is the one that upholds the idea of seeking truth everywhere. But I think, as far as time and resources go, it takes a firm second place. You can seek truth, as long as you keep it to yourself.

As for me, if I could find a group of people who sought truth whereever it could be found, I’d join up with them in a minute.
Brian Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 8:54 AM
I think the metaphor of the tent is telling of those within the church; they are keeping themselves from others, whether it is the “family” tent, or the “ward” tent, or the “church” tent. It is by breaking out of the tent that you find the truth. I am in the midst of reading Bro. Bradley’s article about the “Grand Fundamental Principles of Mormonism.” It is a very interesting piece and something all members of the church should be willing to read and study.

It reminds me of something M. Scott Peck said about religion. There are 4 categories of people and how they view religion. 1-those who have no need for religion; 2-those that have to have the rigid structure of religion to survive; 3-those who question everything about religion, but believe; and 4-those who understand. I believe that to be a true principle and it is something many within the church might not be willing to explore.

I believe that is why Matt seems so cynical about the tent thesis; he has seen that there are so few in the church who are willing to go outside of their comfort zone and accept truth wherever it might be. Those are the people who are stuck in Mr. Peck’s #2 slot and who are afraid to venture into the #3 or #4 spots because they don’t really understand what the Lord has in store for them.

D & C 88 talks about those who have been warned should warn their neighbors. I think many don’t really understand the context of that statement. Verses 76 through 80 talk about learning and it is not specific to the gospel, it is all learning. It goes hand in hand with D&C 130 about level of intelligence. We should find joy in the discovery of knowledge and truth.

I have rambled on. I hope you have gotten my point. Those who seek all truth and embrace it, truely understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Rory Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 11:17 AM
Thanks for the comments – I know it is easy to be cynical, but my post is directed as much at us, individually, as it is any group or institution. And no, Brian, you didn’t ramble – great thoughts!

The tent metaphor not only applies to LDS vs. others, but within and among ourselves. How many times will someone who subscribes to Sunstone venture into, say, FARMS territory? How many times will FARMS subscribers reciprocate? And in both cases not just to contend with, but to really understand? I know these are gross oversimplifications, but I hope you see my point.

More broadly, where do we, individually, find truth external to LDS? Are we content to look just for tidbits from other Christians? Or are we looking for insights from the Quran, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, Sufi mystics, etc.? To extend beyond religion and philosophy; are we looking for truth and insights from biology, archeology, physics, anthropology, etc.?

It’s not easy. I know that my commitment tends to ebb and flow – the effort required to study, search, contemplate, and incorporate is significant. It isn’t something to undertake casually.

But aside from the effort required, I do think that we have lost (or, perhaps, never really incorporated) Joseph Smith’s vision of truth as a grand fundamental principle. We tend to cast a suspicious eye towards anything external to our own accepted view. As Sister Joan Chittister, a Benedictine nun, observes, “The problem of the nature of faith plagues us all our lives. Is openness to other ideas infidelity or is it the beginning of spiritual maturity?”

Alas, Matt, you may be right – the idea that we have the truth makes it very difficult to appreciate other insights. If that is the case, then the grand fundamental principle of truth may be relegated to an individual and personal commitment.
Stephen Carter Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 12:42 PM
Brian said:
1-those who have no need for religion; 2-those that have to have the rigid structure of religion to survive; 3-those who question everything about religion, but believe; and 4-those who understand.

I reply
Just to fine tune your potrayal above,

Peck’s 1st catagory is a state of moral chaos and egotism. The people in this stage do need a guiding principle in order to emerge from stage 1.

I think Peck’s 3rd catagory is radical doubt. The only belief in this stage is just hope that something can be found through doubt. That’s why stage 2 is so unwilling to go into stage 3, because it looks too much like stage 1. They think they’re retrogressing. The only way to emerge from stage 3 is to doubt so deeply that you finally doubt your own ability to perceive truth.

My life has been quite informed by Peck’s taxonomy here. I’m glad to find someone else who has looked into his work.
Lianne Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 12:48 PM
I just finished reading Don Bradley’s article, and I found it very interesting. I think the “tent” of the church right now is very rigid, and I’m not sure this isn’t a bad thing. I have learned through my 50 years how to negotiate the rigidity of the Church and my personal beliefs, that might not be quite a rigid.

I find it interesting that Joseph was able to walk the line between being “the one true church” and “embracing all good in all faiths”. There is an implied superiority there, but somehow his focus on love and acceptance evens it out.

I guess I’ve just learned how to pitch my own personal tent and decorate it just the way I like!
Stephen Carter Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 12:50 PM
Rory said:

How many times will someone who subscribes to Sunstone venture into, say, FARMS territory? How many times will FARMS subscribers reciprocate?

I reply:

I think one of the problems here is the level of discourse. Those guys at FARMS have very specific qualifications for membership in their discourse. You have to be highly educated, you have to be well read in particular branches of history, etc. It’s a level that only a few people have achieved, so the rank and file of the Church tend to treat FARMS people as demi-prophets, who are so informed about things the rabble know nothing about, that they cannot be questioned. It’s a very hierarchical discourse, much like the discourse in the institutional church.

I even feel like I’m in over my head a lot times while reading Dialogue. So I think one overridding question is: can you even gain access to the different discourses?

This is one reason why I like the Sunstone community. The people here are smart, but they can converse on a populist level, instead of insisting on an elite conversation.

And believe me, Rory, I’ve tried to integrate the “Sunstone” approach into the discourse of my own ward, but they don’t want it.
Stephen Carter Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 12:58 PM
Rory said:

Are we content to look just for tidbits from other Christians? Or are we looking for insights from the Quran, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, Sufi mystics, etc.?

I reply:

I’m at a point in my life right now where I find MUCH more spiritual sustenance from outside sources. I love the Tao Te Ching and the teachings of Chuang Tzu. Some of my spiritual mentors for the past year have been a pair of 28-year-old Lutheran pastors in an Alaskan village, a secular Jew here in Fairbanks, and a post-Mormon in Idaho.

I have the feeling that my particular tastes are just that, tastes. I don’t think my current tendencies have any reflection on the value of any spiritual paths.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 2:27 PM
Let me say that I also enjoyed Bradley’s Sunstone article. I had not heard some of the Joseph Smith quotes he cites and found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with most of them. (BTW, since I seem to disagree more than agree with Joseph these days — being mired in Fowler Stage Four doubt and skepticism — its nice to stumble upon quotes I can wholeheartedly embrace… and use in Elder’s Quorum, of course.) I also enjoyed Rory’s elaboration of Bradley’s article in this blog post.

Like Stephen Carter (#2), I too am intrigued by the fundamental conflict between the Church’s counsel to: 1.) Seek out the good things in the world; and 2.) Avoid the bad things in the world. Think back at the tenor of Conference talks over the past 3-4 sessions, or the substance of your Sunday School or Priesthood/RS lessons over the past several months… Despite the occaisional “worldly” Shakespeare reference by Hinckley, or Dickens reference by Monson, the general tenor of conference talks and church lessons is to warn us against the evils of the world. Its all obedience, obedience, obedience. Its follow the prophet, follow your leaders, follow your husband/wife, but don’t follow “men” or “the world”. Church counsel to seek out the good things in the world is but a flickering candle compared to the 20,000 watt spotlight that blazes on avoiding the bad things in the world.

Brian (#3) and Stephen (#5) refer to an M. Scott Peck book. Which one? I recently bought (but have not yet read) Peck’s “The Different Drum”, based on a recommendation by Stephen, I think, in a previous blog post…

Speaking of which, I like Brian’s and Rory’s idea of breaking out of one’s tent to look for truth, that the onus to do so largely rests on the individual, not the Church. I have found Sunstone to be a valuable resource in terms of calling attention to new “tents” of truth. Sunstone acts both as a “Maven” and “Connector” (terms courtesy of Malcolm Gladwell’s “The Tipping Point”) in this regard. For example, in the past year I have been edified by Fowler’s “Stages of Faith”, Newton’s “Journey of Souls”, and Wilber’s “A Brief History of Everything”. (And maybe soon Peck’s “Different Drum”.) All courtesy of Sunstone. I’ve found some good “truth” in all of them.

Like Stephen, I’m something of a “truth junkie”, or maybe “truth vagabond” is more descript, as anyone, even the most correlated LDS Iron Rodder, can be a truth junkie. What I mean to say is this: I’ll always love my Mormon Tent, but I’m more interested, at least currently, in experiencing truth in the countless other tents pitched around God’s campground. Extending the tent metaphor a bit… it will be interesting to see where the journey will end. Like Lianne (#6), the wanderlust may eventually subside and I might take souvenirs from these neighboring tents back to decorate and add color to my Mormon tent. Then again, I may decide to put my Mormon tent on the market, taking a few select pieces of furniture with me to a new tent. Or maybe I’ll just “drop trou” and go tentless the rest of my life.
Stephen Carter Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 3:30 PM
Matt said:

Brian (#3) and Stephen (#5) refer to an M. Scott Peck book. Which one? I recently bought (but have not yet read) Peck?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìThe Different Drum?¢Ç¨¬ù,

I say:

That’s the one. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
Brian Says:
June 30th, 2006 at 10:22 PM
Stephen: Thank you for the clarification on Peck’s 4 states. I never read this in a book. I heard him speak one time and did not take notes! Silly me!

Thank you all for your dialog. This is how we find truth!!
David Mazel Says:
July 1st, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Rory, I certainly appreciate the values implicit in your post, but I read the first few chapters of Mosiah quite differently than you do. I don’t see where those chapters offer any scriptural grounds for believing that someday “the believing camps [will] be able to exist and interact comfortably under the same grand tent,” or that we might be able to “look to our neighbor?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s tent and appreciate the truth and insights that they might have to offer.”

Think about it. In the Book of Mosiah, an absolute monarch commands his subjects to gather together so that he might unilaterally transmit to them the truth that has been revealed to him by God. I don’t see so much as a speck of a hint in these passages that the truth might be something discovered through respectful dialogue between differing viewpoints.

The problem is not that the church has “lost the commitment to the principle of forever acquiring truth.” The problem is that LDS theology never had such a commitment. It was committed from the very beginning to the principle that truth is divinely revealed to the divinely appointed authorities. Even when revisions to the truth clearly originate in dialogue with the surrounding culture (as in the extension of the Melchizedek priesthood to worthy black men), the church insists upon cloaking the change in the monologic mantle of divine authority. God forbid it should ever simply acknowledge that its opponents on the issue had strong arguments and persuaded the authorities to change their mind….

Anyway, in my reading, the Book of Mosiah has King Benjamin rejecting the idea of dialogue as a means of discovering truth. As he tells the assembly, “beware lest there shall arise contentions among you” (Mosiah 2:32). Benjamin characterizes dialogue as “contentions” that might lead the Nephites to become like the terrible Lamanites–not a very good way to encourage plurality of opinion.

The Book of Mormon as a whole rejects the dialogic model of the search for truth in more subtle ways. For one thing, it contains very little in the way of actual dialogue at all and generally depicts difference of opinion in black and white terms, as Good vs. Evil.

I would contrast the Book of Mormon in this respect to two aspects of the Bible.

First, the Bible is a redacted anthology, whereas the Book of Mormon is not. The side-by-side presence of the Bible’s different sources gives voice to conflicting viewpoints that require readers to think critically about its truth. Think of the substantial difference between the Priestly and Jahwist accounts of creation, and the way that those differences and others like them gave rise to source criticism and liberal forms of interpretation. Or think of how difficult it is to harmonize the viewpoints of Proverbs (with its banal conventional wisdom) and Ecclesiastes (with its pessimistic quasi-nihilism). The juxtaposition of these two very different viewpoints compel serious readers to think in terms of dialogue rather than the monologic transmission of revealed truth. I doubt that anything similar will happen with the Book of Mormon because, of course, it is the product of a single author.

Second, consider the many biblical texts that directly dramatize dialogue–for example, Abraham’s argument with God over the justice of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:17-33) or the lengthy debates over divine justice in the Book of Job. What these stories feature, and what the Book of Mormon sorely lacks, is genuine dialogue over serious issues–dialogue in which differing viewpoints are presented respectfully, in which even the “wrong” viewpoint is shown to have some merit, and in which received authority is legitimately challenged. In Abraham’s debate with God, Abraham not only challenges God but actually gets him to change his mind!

(I know that some readers are scandalized by this idea and argue that God never changed his mind at all but was merely “testing” Abraham. If so, however, what God must have been testing was Abraham’s willingness to stand up for his own moral sense by challenging the greatest authority of them all.)

These biblical stories, along with the dialogic nature of the Bible itself, provide models of respectful theological dialogue as a means of attaining truth. Unless I’m forgetting something, I would have to say that such models are absent from the Book of Mormon. Certainly no such model is provided by King Benjamin.

I’m not saying that dialogue is impossible for the LDS Church itself–merely that the Book of Mormon is not a good place to go to justify such dialogue. Much more promising, I would suggest, would be the early history of the church itself. That history abundantly demonstrates Joseph Smith’s receptiveness to ideas from other people and from his culture as a whole.
Rory Says:
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Stephen:

I like your response on the FARMS/Sunstone comparison. I also received some good feedback in a conversation yesterday that pointed out a serious flaw in my comparison. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m thinking on this more, but I do understand your point.

David:

Excellent thoughts ?¢Ç¨Äú thank you for posting! One clarification:

I wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t using Mosiah to provide ?¢Ç¨?ìscriptural grounds?¢Ç¨¬ù or support for my post ?¢Ç¨Äú rather, note the language I did use:

The image of the gathering to hear the words of King Benjamin is interesting ?¢Ç¨Äú each family within a tent, separate and distinct from other families.

So, drawing upon the particular statement in verse five of ?¢Ç¨?ìevery family being separate one from another,?¢Ç¨¬ù I used it as a jumping off point for my thoughts. I still think it is an excellent visual, though my use of it may have implied more, especially given my first sentence.

EDIT 03.Jul.06

The differences between the Book of Mormon and the Bible are, in some respects, significant. I would only argue that while the Book of Mormon is the basis for the creation of this movement, the Bible is also in our canon. That, along with the early history you cite, as well as the implicit instructions to search out other writings that Bradley points to in 2 Nephi, should be more than sufficient for us to be willing to seek truth.

Finally, I have been imprecise in my use of language. I should refer to us as a “people” rather than us as a “church” – I don’t think it is realistic to expect the institution to embrace this principle of dialog. It is, however, incumbent upon each of us, individually, to explore and search for truth.
David Mazel Says:
July 4th, 2006 at 9:26 AM
Rory, my apologies for responding to your discussion of an “image” as if you had been talking about “scriptural grounds.” One of the more interesting implications of that image, I think, is the way it groups and divides. On the one hand there is Benjamin, a king. Listening to him are the multitude, depicted neither as one great mass nor as discrete individuals, but as distinct families.

So the line of transmission of the message is not from the authority to the individual, nor from the authority to the mass, but from the authority to the family. Perhaps the most obvious way to read that might be in terms of Paul’s patriarchal model, in which the husband is to the wife and kids as God is to the husband. I suspect that the church authorities would approve such a reading.

But an alternative reading might point out that the family, with its small size and intimacy of members, provides an ideal venue for discussion. In this reading, the image suggests that what should happen is not that the individual should try to understand and evaluate Benjamin’s words by himself or herself, nor that the people as a whole should hash it out, but that people should do so in the context of their families.

Less literally, the image suggests the possibility of the sort of communities you suggest, communities within which issues can be discussed and debated independently of the church authorities.

All of these things (and from the perspective of the Sunstone “tent” they are obviously good things) might plausibly be suggested by the “tents” image. But the text of Mosiah itself, alas, undermines them. At the end of Benjamin’s speech we read that the assembled multitude “all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken to us” and that therefore “we have no more disposition to do evil.” Not only do the people decline to engage in true dialogue, but they implicitly accept Benmjamin’s characterization of dissent as “evil.”

So I think you’re right to distinguish between “people” (represented here by the families in their tents) and “church” (represented here by Benjamin) and to look for more ways to imagine some critical distance between them. (To put that difference succinctly: The Mormon “people” is what created Sunstone. The Mormon “church” is what dislikes Sunstone and sees is as a threat. It ought to see Sunstone as an ally. No doubt eventually it will.

Anyway, I would argue that when Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, or at least the Benjamin episode, he seemed unable to imagine a church whose members might be anything other than lock-step believers. But I agree with Bradley that Smith’s theological imagination grew over time as it engaged more and more of the world. I hope Bradley is right that this growth included the notion that the essence of Mormon belief was not theological conformity but broader principles that could be expressed in a variety of ways.

I’m wondering if perhaps the terms “LDS Church” and “LDS culture” would be a little better than “church” and “people,” since the term “people” for some might have connotations of ethnicity that would not really apply to Mormons in the way that it does to, say, Jews. But there’s definitely a distinctive LDS culture. (There might well be more continuity in LDS culture than there is in LDS theology.)

Of course, church and culture are not completely independent of one another. They’re related in complex ways that will be fascinating to observe as the church authorities find themselves encountering greater and greater levels of cultural, ethnic, and intellectual diversity.
hope wotherspoon ( the daughter) Says:
July 6th, 2006 at 10:42 AM
hi poppy i like your bloggy thing… lub ya bye- hope schmope
Gina--your sister Says:
July 8th, 2006 at 6:06 PM
great article–I’m proud of my brother
Bryon Martin Says:
July 10th, 2006 at 11:58 PM
Re: John Williams?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ post of May 8th (#13 above):

I was saddened when I read Williams?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ post about a month ago, that a scholar of Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s magnitude was seemingly being cheaply lectured at. As I read it now, another month later, I feel even more strongly and feel a response is needed.

What kind of hymn to ambiguity is Williams describing when he writes ?¢Ç¨?ìDan is a tireless critic (as tireless as an apologist), and, as such, he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s almost always right and wrong at the same time.?¢Ç¨¬ù? Williams further writes, ?¢Ç¨?ìFor Mormon apologists today, it no longer matters what Joseph Smith thought of the book, which means that Vogel can only ever be engaged in a contest of interpretations. At the end of the day, the question will be not what did Joseph Smith think, but whose interpretation is the most convincing now??¢Ç¨¬ù

Again, Williams is, I believe, too caught up in his own reading list. The claims Joseph Smith made are the critical thing, and these include his Book of Abraham, his preliminary report of the Kinderhook plates, his Nauvoo explanation of the foundations of Freemasonry, and his various reports of the first vision. All of us who are part of the Sunstone/Dialogue communitas know that the facts matter. That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s why we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re here. Somehow, the facts got to us. The facts may not matter in the same way to the apologists William describes (at least publicly ?¢Ç¨Äú what they wrestle with in their own hearts may end up not being surprising at all), but Vogel is only responding to the apologists for the sake of clarity. When the dust settles from their give and take, we, whom Vogel is truly writing for, are able to attach weight and meaning to the strength of the various arguments.

The reading list Williams suggests may be appropriate for postmodernist reviews of poetry, fiction, or political writing; however, the text under consideration here is of a different order altogether. The Book of Mormon purports to be a historical document and, like the Donation of Constantine, can be considered on terms of textual criticism of like kind. The ?¢Ç¨?ìcritics?¢Ç¨¬ù who proved the Donation to be a forgery were not ?¢Ç¨?ìright and wrong at the same time,?¢Ç¨¬ù nor were the critics who found the Protocols of Zion to be nothing but the product of zealous imaginations. Historical documents have a provenance and evidential support that either gives them credence or takes it away from them. I could go on and on with examples of Mark Hoffman, Carlos Castaneda, and Mary Baker Eddy. The historical claims tied up in these writers?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ texts and lives sometimes can be deciphered by critical examination. Clearly. And this can be done when there is a paper trail, as is definitely the case with Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Book of Mormon.

I believe the point that Williams is entirely missing is this: To what degree are the claims of the BOM grounded in reality? That they are part of the Tillichian ?¢Ç¨?ìground of all being?¢Ç¨¬ù for millions of active or non-critical LDS is not the point. That the FARMS group will use whatever they can to defend the claims of the BOM is, again, not the point. There was a similar feverish endeavor to dismiss the conclusions of the critical examination of the Donation. What matters is that scholars like Dan Vogel are (thank God) expending the energy at textual and environmental studies to give us a chance to wrestle with the truths they uncover.

Consider how Mormon studies are so different now than they were 40 years ago. (Dare I say pre-Tanners?) Facts do matter. In fact, the notion that Williams apparently puts forth, that truth claims themselves are open to postmodernist interpretations, is an indicator of how devastating the revelation of factual truth is. The diminishing role that both Joseph Smith and the BOM play in the rechristened Community of Christ is another.
Jo Says:
July 15th, 2006 at 2:04 PM
Nicholas, your statement “I eventually found myself physically unable to respond to my wife sexually, let alone to fulfill her emotional needs,” begs the question, why didn’t you try to feed the responsiveness that you had previously? And, if homosexuality isn’t a choice, then how were you ever responsive to your wife?
It is evident from my readings here, evergreen international, and from working with gay men in the mental health field that it is another sexual addiction. You say it is ridiculously simplistic to compare it to alcohol addiction. And it is. However, just as chemical addiction isn’t so much about the alcohol or drug itself as it is about the emotional/psychological underpinnings, it is a sexual addiction. Sexual addiction is not about sex. It is a complex emotional/psychological disturbance that manifests itself in sexual acting out. Sex being the only way some can find to connect with another human being. Saying that you finally gave in to find fulfillment is akin to a woman saying she finally gave in to prostitution as a means to connect and find joy with men. Possibly you might not have become promiscuous, but that is doubtful. And you may have settled down with one partner, but, many prostitutes have a “main squeeze” and many resigned alcoholics quit the partying and settle for a bottle of wine or beer every night for a constant buzz.
I do not intend to sound hostile. But, being am not young anymore and have seen the cycle of the gay in the closet, out of the closet “happy and free” and then the down spiral. A gay friend once said that he would not wish being gay on his worse enemy and that the gay lifestyle never works out. He also said that gays are made, not born in his opinion. I think that is so true. It is not being horrible to speak an opinon on that issue either. Why not be willing to say what your deductions are on that, Nicholas? We are here to openly discuss issues are we not?
Again I go back to asking why you could not rekindle the flame with your wife if it was there at all in the beginning? I would guess that the flame went out as you started pursuing gayness.
Nicholas S. Literski Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 11:19 AM
Jo, let me preface my remarks with what I feel is an important point. Many, including both gay activists and religious fundamentalists, get very wrapped up in the issue of what “causes” a person to be homosexual. Most of the rhetoric on this subject serves only to justify the speakers’ bias. Gay activists often proclaim the substantial, yet inconclusive, evidence of a genetic component in sexual orientation. They do this in order to argue that homosexuality is natural and normal. Religious fundamentalists often deny *any* genetic component, and broadcast their views that homosexuality is a “sickness,” a “deviation,” or whatever, brought on by everything from youthful masturbation to domineering mothers.

I don’t think for a moment that one “cause” explains all of homosexual orientation. Elder Dallin Oaks, in his well-known Ensign article, conceded that there may well be a genetic component. Other general authorities have argued otherwise. I don’t believe there are many gay men who woke up one day, saying “Hey, I think I’ll piss God off by having sex with men!”, but perhaps there are some.

Personally, however, I find that the whole issue of “WHY” I am gay to be almost entirely irrelevant. After many long years of struggle, I came to better understand my own nature, and what makes me happy. My choice in the matter, which I fully own, was not one of what set of chemical, visual, and other stimuli would stir a response within me. Rather, my choice was to live in a way that was consistent with this understanding. For years, I felt guilt and anxiety which I attributed to my attraction toward men. When I came out of the proverbial closet, these feelings disappeared. I found that those feelings were not guilt for my attractions, but rather guilt for the deception that I was constantly practicing in order to hide and deny those attractions.

You appear to make a blanket statement that homosexuality is an addiction. I have also worked in the social services, Jo, and I have been trained in addiction. You declined to identify the nature of your work with gay men “in the mental health field,” but let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you have received similar training. If so, then you are no doubt familiar with the “cycle of addiction,” a very useful model in both understanding and treating addictions. You are surely aware that the cycle begins with negative feelings, which are temporarily eased by the behavior in question, only to be renewed via guilty feelings for the behavior—hence the repeating cycle. The alcoholic feels an emotional need which she tries to solve through drinking. The alcohol numbs the emotional pain temporarily, and even causes a mild “high.” Afterward, however, the alcoholic feels guilty for drinking, and it is this guilt which becomes the NEW stimulus for yet another round with the bottle. I can not say that my homosexual behavior fits this classic description. I can not say that the homosexual behavior of most of my gay friends fits this classic description.

I don’t know how “not young” you are, Jo, and it would be impolite to ask. I will turn 40 in August–neither “young” nor “old,” really. In my short time on this planet, however, I have also seen a variety of individuals. Since your experience with gay men appears to be in a mental health capacity, might I suggest that your exposure has been to a rather distinct subset of gay men—ones who are experiencing anxiety, depression, or other manifestations which cause them to seek treatment? I know that when I was a juvenile probation officer, I sometimes found myself suspecting that “all” youth were hoodlums awaiting their chance to offend.

Maybe the “why” in the life of your friend who despairs being gay is different than my “why,” or the “why” of many very content, fulfilled gay men I know. Even on those days when I wonder if I will ever find “Mr. Right,” I don’t find myself feeling like being gay “never works out.” As hard as it may seem to you to believe, I frequently find myself THANKFUL for being gay. I find myself thankful that I can be myself, and act responsibly in a way that brings me peace of mind and happiness. I find myself thankful to be part of a community which embraces differences, and allows individuals to follow their own inclinations, rather than imposing socio-cultural norms that in the end are only traditions. You see, rather than engaging in a cycle of despair and futile attempts at satsifaction, I find myself happier than I can ever remember. I find I LIKE MYSELF MORE than I can ever remember. As a wise Carpenter-turned-Rabbi once said, “the truth shall set you free.”
stephencarter Says:
July 17th, 2006 at 11:53 AM
Nicholas said:
You see, rather than engaging in a cycle of despair and futile attempts at satsifaction, I find myself happier than I can ever remember. I find I LIKE MYSELF MORE than I can ever remember.

I reply:

I know a lot how you feel Nick. I’m sure it isn’t exactly the same experience, but I felt much the same way when I decided that I wasn’t so bad after all for being such an unorthodox Mormon. The nightmares of going to hell went away, my constant fear that some bishop was going to out me faded, and gradually I started feeling something like an adult. You know, someone who takes responsibility for his own life and doesn’t have to rely on an outside source to validate him.

However, I’m suspicious of my experience, because what I basically did was change the premise of my beliefs. Before, I believed some overarching principles very strongly, which affected my perception of countless other things: moral questions, diet questions, etc. For example, before my shift, I never would have touched an R-rated movie. Now I watch them without batting an eye.

So I had to actually change my value system in order to come to peace with myself. I don’t think I would be willing to universalize my experience. If everyone went around changing their underpinning beliefs to accommodate their tendencies like I did, we’d have quite a chaotic society.

But, of course, I’m hoping that my shift was a constructive one. I’m hoping that what I have done is refined my belief system and integrated it more with a growing understanding of myself, and my place in the world. I certainly know that I have acted less destructively toward myself and the people around me since I let go of so many of my foundational ideas. In fact, looking back, I would be willing to say that many of my behaviors followed the addiction cycle you outlined.

But I can also see my position from the pew perspective. And I look very suspicious. Which is probably why I haven’t “come out of the closet” in my ward.
John Williams Says:
July 18th, 2006 at 9:10 PM
In responding to Bryon Martin, I’d like to first state how much I admire Dan Vogel’s work. And, just as crucially, explain that I have indeed changed my views about Book of Mormon historicity over the years, and Dan’s work was part of that. But, whether you are a naturalist or not does not change the fact that the debate will ALWAYS hinge on the question of interpretation. When Bryon asks, “To what degree are the claims of the BOM grounded in reality?” One has to respond, a priori, to what extent do we understand its claims? You can’t measure a claim against reality before you understand its claim.

So the question is, now, how clear are the “claims” made by the Book of Mormon? Naturally, we would like to privilege JS’s interpretation of the book (hemispheric geography, Plains Indians = Lamanites, etc.). But, even if you accept that JS wrote the book, you have to concede that the claim that it was a TRANSLATION opens the possibility, however remote, that he may not have completely understood the precise implications of what he was translating. Such a thing happens all the time with translation. If, for example, I attempt a translation of Jacques Derrida’s work (which I’ve tried), it certainly doesn’t mean I understand everything he’s talking about, even if I can give you a rough word-for-word from the French.

So, that the BofM is a translation (even if you don’t accept any of that postmodern rhetoric) means that its translator could have very well misunderstood what he was translating. Of course, such an explanation isn’t going to sit well with your average church member, but it is nonetheless FARMS’s entire argument. Anyway, your average Mormon doesn’t think about it.

My only purpose in encouraging Dan to explore a bit of postmodern theory was the hope that it might save him some exasperation. There is nothing wrong with defending absolute historical truth (in fact, you HAVE to proceed as best you can in that direction), but there is no reason to pretend that textual meaning arrives to us in some unmediated univocal fashion, clean and delicious. It’s messier than that, and the amazingly creative energy exhibited in someone like Blake Ostler only proves that messiness.

best,
John.
Christopher Phillips Says:
July 20th, 2006 at 10:28 PM
I am late in on this discussion, but excited to see this kind of dialogue happening. I am currently running blog/site about disability in the Church, in the process trying to gather as many resources as possible. Unfortunately, so many of the articles and stories in Church magazines and elsewhere too often tell the story of the ’supercrip’. This type of narrative generally focuses on the enormity of the difference or disability in order to set up the heroic nature of overcoming whatever obstacle lay in their way.

I also enjoyed reading the experiences from other faith communities, as noted above these same problems are not unique to the Mormon experience. Fortunately, you can find bright spots in almost any group as this list of disability resources from other faith groups will attest.
Bryon Martin Says:
July 25th, 2006 at 9:54 PM
While Mr. Williams?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s response (post #19) may be appropriate for texts like The Song of Solomon or even Job (pieces that may try to convey a subjective vision of truth via metaphorical, poetic, or even Socratic-like dialogues), I maintain that his response is not appropriate to texts that purport to factually describe a historical situation. Two strong examples, The Constantine Donation and The Protocols of Zion, were listed earlier. The Book of Mormon falls into this category; Hoffman?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Salamander Letter does as well. These texts are either historically accurate or they are not.

Imagine an anthropologist (think of Margaret Mead, for example) who has described a culture (think of the Samoans) in great detail: its tools, industry, architecture, language, coinage, animal husbandry, etc. Imagine that after she publishes her work we visit the places she has written extensively about ?¢Ç¨Äú but instead of being able to corroborate the anthropologist?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s findings, we find absolutely nothing that corresponds with what she had described. In fact, what we find on the ground actually contradicts the claims that the anthropologist had made in her book.

At this point we would not look for a metaphorical or post-modernist interpretation that would justify our continued reliance on what the anthropologist had described and published; we would question the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s validity and start weighing evidences to see which of her claims were fraudulent and which could be relied on for their accuracy.

I see John?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s argument creep away from this critical distinction as he moves from paragraph one to paragraph two in his last posting. Paragraph one ends with, ?¢Ç¨?ìYou can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t measure a claim against reality before you understand its claim.?¢Ç¨¬ù The next paragraph opens with two revealing sentences: ?¢Ç¨?ìSo the question is, now, how clear are the ?¢Ç¨?ìclaims?¢Ç¨¬ù made by the Book of Mormon? Naturally, we would like to privilege JS?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interpretation of the book (hemispheric geography, Plains Indians = Lamanites, etc.).

At first he says that we must understand the nature of a claim. I couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t agree more. (So a quick review: What is a horse? Could we recognize a horse if we saw one? What is a chariot? Does it have wheels that enable transportation? What is an elephant? What is wheat? What is an iron sword, helm, or chest plate?) Good enough. But look what happens as Williams opens his next paragraph ?¢Ç¨Äú he changes the direction of the claims that the BOM itself makes to those that Joseph Smith makes about the BOM (?¢Ç¨?ìhemispheric geography, Plains Indians = Lamanites, etc.?¢Ç¨¬ù). I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think this is a deliberate bait and switch; I think it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s simply mistaking two kinds of claims. Evidence that Smith was aware of this difference is shown in the terms he used for the currency of the Nephites: he didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t use denominations like pound, doubloon, or dollar, terms with which he was familiar, because those weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t the Nephite?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s currency. (Or because it would have been an easily noticed anachronism?) Similarly, when he translates that the Nephites had horses, chariots, silk, etc., he does not come up with new names for these things. He names them as they are. And as a translator ?¢Ç¨Äú not an interpreter of his translation ?¢Ç¨Äú his work was confirmed by an angel to be the most correct of any book on earth. This is the issue to be dealt with.

The remarkable idea that Smith was an accurate translator but so weak a prophet that he cannot be depended upon to comment knowingly on an allegedly religious work puts the FARMS folk and their followers in an interesting position. Remember the controversy of 1835, when revelations from the Book of Commandments were revised for the new Doctrine and Covenants? There was contention among some of the faithful because of these changes. One of the changes was this: The 1833 BoC, at 4:2 (re: Joseph Smith), originally read, ?¢Ç¨?ì?¢Ç¨¬¶ and he has a gift to translate the book, and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.?¢Ç¨¬ù This was changed in 1835 to, ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift I bestowed upon you; and I have commanded that you should pretend to no other gift, until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.?¢Ç¨¬ù (D&C 5:4)

The faith of some of these early Mormons was severely challenged because of this episode. How ironic, that some modern LDS apologists, in their eagerness to preserve the BOM, might feel more comfortable now with the original wording of the BoC!

Bottom line, I prefer the notion that the BOM may be a ?¢Ç¨?ìmetaphorical?¢Ç¨¬ù work that demonstrates a young man?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s feverish desire to make simple that which had, over the centuries, becomes so complicated. But let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not relieve the BOM of the rigorous tests we must give it as the historical document it claims to be just because the BOM is easier to deal with as a metaphorical one.
John Williams Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 10:52 AM
I am very much on board with Bryon as to the weight of evidence compelling us to read the book as ?¢Ç¨?ìmetaphorical.?¢Ç¨¬ù As I said, I am no defender of historicity. But there are different levels we have to deal with here. The first is a strictly epistemological one. At this level, unless you are stuck in absolutist Cartesian thinking, you have to understand that ?¢Ç¨?ìclaims,?¢Ç¨¬ù before they can ever even be understood as such, must be identified as the product of some ?¢Ç¨?ìauthor?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äùor, to use archeological language, of some ?¢Ç¨?ìstyle.?¢Ç¨¬ù Style, in Richard Neer?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s words, is ?¢Ç¨?ìthe feature that identifies an assemblage, stratum, or find-spot as such.?¢Ç¨¬ù For something to have ?¢Ç¨?ìstyle,?¢Ç¨¬ù in other words,?¢Ç¨¬ù is to already grant it the status of being an artifact. Archeologists have sometimes uncovered an object, which ?¢Ç¨?ìis either the earliest known example of human representational activity or a funny looking rock.?¢Ç¨¬ù (see Critical Inquiry 32.1: 4-6). With texts, we assume, always beforehand, that they are the product of some ?¢Ç¨?ìauthor?¢Ç¨¬ù (Foucault calls it an ?¢Ç¨?ìauthor function?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äùbut I won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t weigh things down with another reference). And once we grant an object/text the status of ?¢Ç¨?ìstyle?¢Ç¨¬ù, there are basically three things we can do with it: 1) We can ask what it means; 2) We can provide a history of its reception over the years; 3) We can play with it.

Now, before I turn to the Book of Mormon as we read it in these contexts, let me turn to Bryon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s somewhat baffling discussion of my statements on ?¢Ç¨?ìclaims.?¢Ç¨¬ù Here is his paragraph:

?¢Ç¨?ìAt first [John] says that we must understand the nature of a claim. I couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t agree more. (?¢Ç¨¬¶) Good enough. But look what happens as Williams opens his next paragraph ?¢Ç¨Äú he changes the direction of the claims that the BOM itself makes to those that Joseph Smith makes about the BOM (?¢Ç¨?ìhemispheric geography, Plains Indians = Lamanites, etc.?¢Ç¨¬ù). I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think this is a deliberate bait and switch; I think it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s simply mistaking two kinds of claims.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Where exactly is the ?¢Ç¨?ìbait and switch?¢Ç¨¬ù here? IS there a difference between Joseph Smith?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims about the book and the claims made by the book itself? COULD there be a difference between JS?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims and the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims? Would Bryon have us believe that there could NEVER be a difference here? If so, then he is defending positivist historicism at the expense of the larger lessons learned in anthropology (that meaning is ALWAYS a ?¢Ç¨?ìconstructed?¢Ç¨¬ù rather than a ?¢Ç¨?ìfound?¢Ç¨¬ù phenomenon). His prejudice against belief in the BofM (as when he claims ?¢Ç¨?ìThank GOD?¢Ç¨¬ù there are scholars like Vogel around to help disabuse us all) has led him into positivist absolutism. In the end, someone well-versed in post-structuralism could have quite easily have predicted the advent of Ostler?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s expect-to-find-no-DNA-evidence argument. Indeed, it comes as no surprise at all. Unbending positivists, on the other hand, are more often seem surprised, scandalized, or even hurt by such moves. How, they ask, could Ostler SAY such a thing?¢Ç¨Äùand particularly when we have so reliably been interpreting the BofM THIS way for so long? Textuality will always be troublesome to positivists. They?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d be just as happy to repress it altogether I think. This is why Bryon wants to make a distinction between different “types” of books and claims. It’s okay for POETRY, he says, to be re-interpreted, but texts that try to get at the FACTS cannot be re-interpreted (because, unlike poetry, we ALWAYS completely understand them–if only this were true!)

Now, the claim that there are only three things you can do with a text (and you might turn to Stanley Fish for a greater elaboration here) is equally true of the Book of Mormon. The problem is, however, while Bryon thinks Ostler is maliciously doing #3, while passing it off as #1, Ostler doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think so. But what Ostler thinks he is doing is not something Bryon can decide for him (whether Bryon likes it or not). Any time you are asking what a text ?¢Ç¨?ìmeans?¢Ç¨¬ù you are making an assumption about intent, and authorship. That the text in question is a translation only makes this argument that much easier. So what it comes down to is that BOTH Oslter and Vogel are asking what the text MEANS. It is just that they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t agree. Now, like me, you can find Vogel more persuasive, but I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think that means you have to tell Ostler that he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not even asking what the text means anymore.

And, before I finish, let me say that the comparison with Mead is somewhat specious. In fact, it may even prove MY point. Mead?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìfateful hoaxing?¢Ç¨¬ù (as Freeman refers to it) has only changed what we understand her book to MEAN. We no longer look at the book (as American social scientists did at one time) as ?¢Ç¨?ìevidence?¢Ç¨¬ù of ?¢Ç¨?ìtrue?¢Ç¨¬ù Samoan culture. We look at it as evidence of a clever Samoan?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s duping of Margaret Mead. But if such a hoaxing happened at Mead?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s expense, and she didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know it was happening, then in some ways it is, again, a question of TRANSLATION. She was still there, still saw things, still heard the Samoans, but got much of her information through native pranksters, and ?¢Ç¨?ìtranslated?¢Ç¨¬ù it all in a way that titillated American readers back home. If there was ever a text that illustrated how meaning is ?¢Ç¨?ìconstructed?¢Ç¨¬ù rather than simply ?¢Ç¨?ìfound?¢Ç¨¬ù, this was it!

Bryon seems to think that any concession to the ?¢Ç¨?ìconstructedness?¢Ç¨¬ù of meaning necessarily forces us to accept the truth claims of scrambling apologetics. But it doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t anyway. If anything, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m only talking about a LARGER truth here.
Bryon Martin Says:
July 26th, 2006 at 3:45 PM
First off, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d like to thank John for the stimulating dialogue! This is great fun for me, and is exactly the reason why I value the Sunstone communitas so much. With the hope that I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t put John in the exasperating situation that his initial post was trying to save Dan Vogel from, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d like us to consider three points:

1) Margaret Mead. My ?¢Ç¨?ìthought experiment?¢Ç¨¬ù re: the anthropologist still stands. Margaret Mead?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s apparent fall from grace is pretty well known to anyone who?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s taken methodology courses, and I used her, parenthetically, as an example of what can happen to a text that is presumed to be accurate but fails to stand up to careful scrutiny. The only thing that would confound such an approach would be if, for example, a small church had been established that proclaimed that the message of Mead?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s book was necessary for salvation, and that it was the most correct of any book on earth. The believers of this dogma would fight tooth and nail against any approaches that would diminish the book?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s authority. But because there was no institution making such faith claims about Mead?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s work, scientific method and academic discourse could play out as they did. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m saying that the claims of the BOM are entitled to the same objective, scientific critique.

2) Positivism. Yes, positivism has been supplanted and Ayer is just a footnote in 20th century philosophy. This is what happens when an allegedly scientific ?¢Ç¨?ìverification principle?¢Ç¨¬ù is revealed to be just one more article of faith. But just because positivism was overthrown as a philosophy doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean it can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t inform us with useful practices. If I go to the hardware store to purchase a $10 dollar item and try to pay for it with only a $5 bill, positivism will rule the day. (Even if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m holding it perfectly still and hope that, as Heisenberg shows us, if she sees its position on the counter she will be confused about its value.) But seriously, it was through scientific (positivistic) methods that the errors in Mead?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s work were revealed.

3) JS as a translator/interpreter. Maybe I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve misunderstood the direction of how these terms are being used; here?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s how I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve thought we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve been using them: From reading some of the ideas being floated around by FARMS apologists, I think their position is that a) Joseph Smith translated the BOM, b) it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s true because of both the angel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s declaration and our own answers to prayerful inquiry, and c) it will stand up to any scrutiny. This is, I believe, their position of JS as a translator. Now where this gets tricky is that in order to defend the BOM, they?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re willing to denigrate Smith as an interpreter of the work he brought forth. (For example, when the idea is floated that JS was perhaps mistaken when JS said Zelph?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s reputation was known from the Atlantic Ocean to the Rocky Mountains, or that the plains Indians of his time were Lamanites.) A current apologist trend seems to be that they only have to defend the standard works ?¢Ç¨Äú not any former prophet?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìinterpretation?¢Ç¨¬ù of them, even if the prophets claimed to be speaking for the Lord. (As in Wilford Woodruff?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s journal, where he states that JS received the information about Zelph in a vision.)

That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s it. I know these positions may seem frustratingly naive (or hopefully, to others, frustratingly direct and pertinent), but it seems to me that if we wish to submit the BOM to the same validity tests as the Constantine Donation, the Protocols of Zion, Coming of Age in Samoa, or even that bill I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m handing the cashier at the hardware store, that they can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be ignored.

Best,
Bryon
John Williams Says:
July 27th, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Unlike what I see happening on other blogs out there, I think Bryon and I are starting to reach an interesting consensus (and I say a hearty ?¢Ç¨?ìAmen?¢Ç¨¬ù to the value of Sunstone!). As for the everyday, nuts-and-bolts value of positivism, I couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t agree more. You have to live your life according to some basic positivist assumptions about the nature of interpretation, language, and textualism. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a bit like Newtonian science. It won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t answer the deeper questions of space and time brought up by Einstein, but it sure makes a lot of sense when you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re driving down the street or making a trip to the hardware store. I think, then, Bryon and I have just been arguing a different levels. The ?¢Ç¨?ìNewtonian?¢Ç¨¬ù rules of interpretation go a long way in helping us see the improbability of the BofM?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s claims to historicity (though it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s worth pointing out that this has changed in the last hundred years?¢Ç¨Äùfor many readers in 1830 it made quite a bit of ?¢Ç¨?ìscientific?¢Ç¨¬ù sense to think Native American Plains Indians might have come from Israel). But it is just as true that the ?¢Ç¨?ìEinsteinian?¢Ç¨¬ù rules of interpretation explain how, at a deeper level, the unconscious mechanics of interpretive communities and the slippery non-saturation of contexts and intentions make possible the kind of reinterpretation we are seeing at FARMS.

The #3 that Bryon discusses above is something I find absolutely fascinating. First, it is based on a principle (the simultaneous infallibility/fallibility of JS) that a majority of church members would not accept. But by-and-large, they do not understand the situation, and have no idea how much this fundamental contradiction is necessary to maintain BofM historicity. The only people who understand it are those who 1) find it bizarre, and end up at Sunstone or reading Vogel?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s books for a better historical explanation of how the BofM came to be; 2) also find it bizarre, but who have enormous cultural or psychological reasons to go on believing in the book (or maybe their job depends on it, as for the boys at FARMS), and so have been initiated into an actually progressive way of thinking that allows the prophet to be both inspired *at times* but also wrong in how he saw many things (i.e. limited by his own culture). This is why, while I agree that the BofM was a 19th century creation, the boys at FARMS (and let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s face it, they?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re ALL boys) are ultimately engaging in what John-Charles Duffy calls ?¢Ç¨?ìprogressive orthodoxy.?¢Ç¨¬ù
Alex Eagar Says:
August 5th, 2006 at 5:57 AM
Well… at least I enjoyed writing it.

I hypothesize that the existence of the God of Heaven will be scientifically proven to all mankind. The first test is optional but increases the likelihood of the scientist to discover the existence of the God of Heaven before the second test. It requires the scientist to first sincerely and unceasingly seek knowledge about the character of the God of Heaven. Second it requires the scientist to sincerely and unceasingly try to live in accordance to the scientist’s own understanding of the God of Heaven’s will. The scientist then needs to simply continue until the God of Heaven reveals Himself to the scientist. The second test is unrecoverable death. The God of Heaven will reveal himself to the scientist after unrecoverable death.
Yvonne Aston Says:
August 13th, 2006 at 2:29 AM
As an active UK member of the church I find the comments regarding the auhenticity and divinity of the BoM fascinating. My husband is a non-member but supports the church as an admirable philosophy for the business of living. I think that we must take as a basic premise the fact that all our experiences are different. Two people can witness the same incident- ask them to write it down seperately and the differences in what they actually saw are astounding. Also, we interpret what we see and hear according to already established precepts of our own. Therefore, for one person to believe that the BoM is fiction and of little worth and for another to believe in its validity and make it a keystone of their faith does not in any way affect what this book is or what it can accomplish. All religions which teach good principles which enable their adherents to live happily with all other human beings in this life are to be cherished. A Muslim who lives his religion will be a kind man, free from zealotry and unjudging of others and the same applies to Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and other faiths. We begin to err when we insist that everyone should think and believe exactly as we do. Within the church there is greater tolerance for freedom of thought and faith than is to be found in most of the world’s major religions. Do not be mislead; whatever your view of the BoM it is your view, you are entitled to it under the principle of free agency but that does not necessarily make those who see the BoM and Joseph Shith differently to be fools, morons or members of the thought police.
awalker Says:
August 14th, 2006 at 11:10 PM
Evergreen…now there’s a formula for emotional catastrophe. Do a little homework folks. You’ll find the American Psychiatric Association found such “therapies” to be so psychologically damaging that they felt the need to formulate a position paper against “recuperative/reparative therapies”. After 30 years my now-former husband confessed that he was gay. Anyone who is naive enough to believe that homoseuxality is a choice need only look into the eyes of someone who (finally) musters the courage to be honest. In this culture, society as a whole, no one would willingly make the choice to be gay. Cripes, folks, the fallout is no picnic, no matter how “progressive” some circles have become. It wasn’t his fault that he was gay. It was and is his fault that he felt pressured enough on a number of levels to lie to the one person to whom he should have been completely honest (in addition to himself). The Church is a phenomenal incubator for gay men. The result is throwing away daughters; sacrificed at the altars of temples. Melodramatic? Hardly. Conservative estimates put adult gay populations at about 20%.

I am still loathe to understand the fear manifested in the hearts of “the brethren” when it comes to all-matters-homosexual. Gay men don’t recruit. Being gay isn’t communicable. Being gay isn’t a disease. Gay just is. Behavior, on the other hand, is very much a matter of control (lack thereof). Gay men don’t molest children; pedophiles molest children. Being gay isn’t a crime. Being a pedophile is a crime. Big difference.

I really appreciated the comments re: single-dom. It’s no fun when you feel as though you’re “damaged goods”. It’s even less enjoyable when one is part of a church community that celebrates family above all else. Not being coupled for any reason other than the death of a spouse is tantamount to the plague.

I realize this is rambling. I apologize. For those who haven’t lived on “the other side of The Closet” (excellent book, by the way), you will never ever know what life is like for the spouse of a gay man, for the children of a gay man; especially a man who espouses “authenticity” without any attempt at responsibility or availability.

Thanks for the exchange, ladies and gents.
Interesting views. Those from straight, still married folks were particularly interesting and idealized.
I sincerely hope you never experience hearing those words: “honey, I love you, I’m gay”.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 15th, 2006 at 11:50 AM
As usual, you articulate MY thoughts relative to faith/belief/Church better than I could myself.

I missed out on The Sugar Beet the first time around. Besides what I’ve seen in Sunstone, the Symposium Session a couple of days ago was really my first introduction to TSB. I left that session with five issues. Many of the articles provided good fodder for laughs around my family’s dinner table later that night. (The article about the Three Nephites masquerading as the Bee Gees comes to mind… I can’t believe I never made the “Stayin Alive” connection before… it now seems so obvious!)

I’m looking forward to the TSB book later this year. Could you remind us when the approx publication date will be?

Finally, is there a Sugar Beet website, and could you point us to the URL?

P.S. I *HAVE* to get a copy of that “Priesthood” or “Authority” (can’t remember?) cologne fake advertisement. Is that available on the Internet? If not, can it be e-mailed to me? That was a scream, and I know 4-5 people whose lives will not be complete until they see it for themselves.
John Remy Says:
August 15th, 2006 at 11:52 AM
You covered the Provo Temple liftoff? My respect for you has just increased by an order of magnitude (I could say that my esteem for you is “soaring” or “out of this world,” but I’ll restrain myself).

I like the idea of inviting contradictions to dinner. The more I experience life and wash it down with Sunstone,the more I find value in the tension between contradictions. This is where a lot of great human stories, art, poetry, religion is found–revelation and creation.
Amy Chamberlain Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 8:23 AM
Stephen said:
I was trying to put a bandage on some cognitive dissonance I was having. The Sugar Beet was a bit of Advilfor the spiritual headaches I got at church. But, the relief was only temporary.

Amy says:
Oh, I can relate.

Here’s my question: do those of us who experience this cognitive dissonance
need to view that as a negative? Or can we learn to, I don’t know, embrace
it as part of ourselves? Can we get to the point where we don’t need
spiritual Advil for it and accept it? I’m asking this as much for me as for
anyone else. F’rinstance: I often remind myself, whilst the Relief Society
ladies tut-tut over the loathsome state of the world and the pristine state
of Us during RS lessons, that much of what I hear in the church has very
little, if anything, to do with the actual gospel. That helps. But is that
another spiritual bandaid? Denial? Am I kidding myself that I can function
happily as a Mormon when I am saddled with a testimony that is riddled with
holes–more holes than fabric?

Stephen said:
There is no shortage of testimonies, formal, informal, and authoritative, that insist that the Mormon Church is the ONLY true church, and that its truth can be found by applying its claims to a set of rules.

Amy says:
Abso-damn-lutely. Hence the cognitive dissonance. It seems to me, the older
I get, that “true religion” (whatever that is) is conducted, or found, or
experienced, on a much more private level than “at church.” In other words,
I feel that my relationship with God is established or strengthened or
whatever within the private sphere, and that much of what “The Church”
espouses about rules or formulas for gaining a testimony has no personal
bearing whatsoever to how _I_ gain religious experience, or knowledge, or
whatever–such as it is. Does that make sense?

That’s not to say that The Church, as formal institute, has no function for
me–it’s just that I don’t see it as vital, or even very helpful, in matters
of personal spiritual knowledge. My ward’s “flavor” is very punishment- and
rule-oriented: Are we doing enough of this? Are we COMPLETELY honest? Are we taking commandment [x] seriously? Oooh–look what horrible thing will happen to us if we don’t obey [y]! I can be receptive to this kind of school
ma’arm-ish approach for about, oh, two minutes. But that’s it. Then I pull
out my Sudoku.

OK, I don’t know anymore if what I’ve said has any relevance to your comment
above, Stephen, so I’ll move on. Oh, wait. One more comment: it’s as though
“The Church” is a bit fearful of trusting people to gain testimonies on
their own, isn’t it? So they have to espouse these formulas, which may very
well work for some people, but leave the rest of us feeling, well, separate?
Detached? Not good enough?

Stephen said:
I am a latter-day sinner. My biggest sin is doubt. I am riddled with it. And the colorful history of the Church is no help. And on top of that, the two main paths that have been presented the doubter are that I must either love the Church or leave it.

Amy says:
That may be what The Church says (or maybe not–maybe just a self-important few) but is that what the gospel says? Or am I making an irrelevant
distinction? I have to hope that when I get to whatever afterlife there may
be, and stand in front of whatever judge will take me, I can say, “Well, I
didn’t exactly have a rock-solid testimony, did I, but at least I kept at
it.” And I’ll have to hope that counts for something.

So why keep at it? Because, for me, I do believe in the CORE values of the
gospel: service. Kindness. Sacrifice. The stuff that Christ taught. And I
can focus on making me a better person in these ways. That’s enough to
occupy me for the rest of my life. And so I can let the stuff that I hear in
church that doesn’t help me go in one ear and out the other. Sort of.
Sometimes. That’s my goal, anyway.

Or am I just copping out? Is this the equivalent of picking and choosing at
a buffet line, which is the metaphor that some Church people sternly invoke
when people like me get started? I mean, who do I think I am, to say that I
have worked out my own personal path to truth (or at least to a measure of
peace)? I dunno.

But, I’m sorry, I just can’t imagine that Jesus Christ will look at you, or
me, or anyone, and say “You were full of doubts? You sinner. Get yourself to
hell.” That’s not a deity I can worship.

Stephen said:
Some people may pity me and say that I have fallen into mere relativism.

Amy says:
I think I’m right there with you. Someone from my ward asked me what I was
listening to (when I ran into her at the gym) and I told her: a book about
Buddhism. Her face soured. “Why?” she asked. I told her I wanted to know
what truths can be mined from that particular religion, and she said, “But
we HAVE all the truth.”

Now, that can’t be a healthy or desirable way to think, can it? Or can it?
The “Church” seems to think so. Or does it? Not even the surliest GA-types
have ever avowed that Mormons have ALL truth. Because we don’t. We’ve also
been invoked to keep learning; I have to assume that includes exploring
other religions. I personally love the promise that all truth will
eventually be circumscribed into one great whole. Meaning that not even the
smuggest Mormons have it all.

I freaking LOVE that promise. Mormons DON’T have a monopoly on truth. I
think that maybe a testimony is more like a framework to help us make
intelligent life decisions rather than a rock-solid “I KNOW” series of
statements–no matter what anyone else says on Fast Sundays at the pulpit.

At least, I hope so.
Nick Literski Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 10:55 AM
As the father of five daughters, I can certainly relate to your comment. I noticed the same disparity in terms of modern Mormon “heroes,” when the Primary room was decorated by cardstock prints of various presidents of the church and other male leaders, with nary a female face to be seen. I nearly went out and purchased pictures of Emma Smith, Eliza R. Snow and other notable women in church history to put up in my young girls’ rooms, so they could see there were great women to emulate!

I frankly found Primary disturbing on a whole variety of levels. The “teaching” techniques I have seen in various wards Primaries have a great deal in common with known brainwashing techniques. The program is structured to mold otherwise creative, adventurous young minds into conformity. This idolatry toward male leaders is just one aspect of that conformity.
RorySwensen Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Amy – excellent commments.

You write:
Here?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s my question: do those of us who experience this cognitive dissonance need to view that as a negative? Or can we learn to, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know, embrace it as part of ourselves? Can we get to the point where we don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t need spiritual Advil for it and accept it?

I write:
It’s a negative insofar as it causes pain and frustration, but at the same time I think it is an opportunity for real personal growth. I wish there were a short, easy answer, but I don’t think there is.

As far as accepting it, I’m not sure this is the proper response. Accepting it implies to me that we have resigned. Perhaps we could say that we move through it and beyond it, learning from it as we progress along our own spiritual journey.

Fowler’s Stages of Faith is a good resource here. It provided me with context and a purpose for my own cognitive dissonance. There’s hope!

You write:
It seems to me, the older I get, that ?¢Ç¨?ìtrue religion?¢Ç¨¬ù (whatever that is) is conducted, or found, or experienced, on a much more private level than ?¢Ç¨?ìat church.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I write:
To borrow your words: Abso-damn-lutely! That said, there is still a need (and responsibility!) for the fellowship and associations from church. While we are each on an individual path and our real growth is private, our associations on Sunday can be supportive, challenging, motivating, and in some respects modeling.

For example, the member whose face soured at the thought of you listening to a book on Buddhism (sigh) – maybe one day she will recall your openness, your quest, and be amenable to the lessons she might take from other sources. If that happens, you’ve been a good model of faith development for her. Likewise, you may benefit in unknown ways from others, as they model their journey. But this modeling – both what we give and what we receive – can only happen if we are engaged.

Anyway, absolutely great comments, and welcome to the SunstoneBlog! I hope you will stick around and share more.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 3:33 PM
Amy said: “Because, for me, I do believe in the CORE values of the gospel: service. Kindness. Sacrifice. The stuff that Christ taught.”

Matt’s response: I agree 100%, but I’ve found most religious traditions teach these same things (as you’ve no doubt found in your study of Buddhism), though some do it better than others. Not to put you on the spot, but I’m curious if you find anything unique to the “Mormon” gospel that you would consider a CORE part of your faith/belief?

Amy said: “Not even the surliest GA-types have ever avowed that Mormons have ALL truth. Because we don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t. We?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve also been invoked to keep learning; I have to assume that includes exploring other religions. I personally love the promise that all truth will eventually be circumscribed into one great whole. Meaning that not even the smuggest Mormons have it all.”

Matt’s response: I enjoy that idea as well, and I grab onto and lovingly fondle such GA quotes whenever I hear them promoted. But I don’t think the quotes reflect everyday reality. Wouldn’t you agree? As you pointed out yourself, I think the Church (by which I mean everyone: leaders and members) are far more interested in controlling and correlating the way (and the place) we find and experience “truth”.

In any case, I enjoyed your post! BTW, are you Ask A Beehive Amy?
Matt Thurston Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 3:52 PM
I couldn’t agree more, Rory. The amazing thing to me is that I never even “saw” (as in really “internalized” or “understood”) this until I became a father myself. Yes, I recognized the lack of heroines and/or female role models (apart from one’s mother) in the Church since I was old enough to know what was going on, but I always just accepted the status quo as normal.

To be fair, this has been somewhat of a problem in society at large until recently, and society probably still has a ways to go.

I’m hoping we’ll eventually arrive at the party, though Mormon Standard Time usually means we’re late by about thirty years.
Stephen Carter Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 4:39 PM
Well, the interesting thing about your post, Rory, is that you are interested in imbuing your own values onto the interpretation of scripture in a public context.

I’m not saying that’s bad. We all do it.

I mean, it probably used to be that Joseph Smith was lionized because of his ability to get many wives, but now that’s hushed up. When the Mormons were feeling picked on, they probably interpreted scriptural calls to war much more literally than we do now, and probably downplayed calls to peaceful interaction with one’s enemies.

We always interpret stories according to our current values and worldview.

So what you’re saying is, “It’s important to ME to talk about female historical figures in primary.” And your ideals reflect current humanistic tendencies.

Yet at the same time, a lot of us who hang around Sunstone like gigantic worms around deep sea vents get annoyed when other people interpret scriptures according to their “backwards” contexts. We like to accuse them under our breaths of igoring the actual scripture in favor of upholding their value system.

So I’m curious, what are the ethics around foisting our interpretations onto scripture, especially when we would be affecting a context as public and formative as primary?
RorySwensen Says:
August 16th, 2006 at 11:53 PM
Nick – 5 daughters? You likely noticed this long before I did.

Matt – I’m with you. I didn’t consciously recognize this until after becoming a father. I’m not happy about that.

Stephen, you write:

So what you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re saying is, ?¢Ç¨?ìIt?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s important to ME to talk about female historical figures in primary.?¢Ç¨¬ù And your ideals reflect current humanistic tendencies.

I respond:
Yep. I’m a product of the times.

But I don’t think it is accurate to say that I am trying, here, to interpret scriptures according to a specific bias in a public context – I’m not trying to foist an interpretation contrary to established doctrine. In fact, I’m silent on the interpretation of the stories.

My point is that primary consists of a healthy mix of girls and boys. I’m simply saying that it would be nice to illustrate some of the stories about women for the benefit of the girls AND the boys.

I don’t expect it to change. Yet. But in the mean time the fact that I am finally conscious of it enables me to act as a responsible father and to supplement the limited instruction my kids get at church. In addition, to the extent that discussions might raise awareness with others, that’s a win.
Rosalynde Says:
August 17th, 2006 at 8:03 AM
This month’s Sharing Time outline in the Friend specifically includes Ruth as one of the scripture heroes to be discussed. I believe the Church curriculum folks are quite aware of gender imbalance issues, and work for an equitable focus.
Gae Lyn Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 3:57 PM
Since you quoted me here Stephen I thought I’d better say something. I just returned from watching my son graduate from BYU. The talks seemed to me to be out of another era–almost regressive (especially after attending Sunstone last week). It surprises me that the same (church or BYU?) discourse is going on and on–especially since I’m living in another interpretive community in which what used to make sense just doesn’t any more.

You talk about holding contrary ideas in tension and not abandoning anything. I’m still in the same place. Why? Because I live with and love people that think so differently from how I think. It feels like I’m becoming more split rather than becoming more integrated. Not only can’t I pretend that I’m not Mormon (it doesn’t wash out in the rinse cycle), I can’t for _____’s sake CUT PEOPLE out of my life! Faces, human faces, that are important to me!

A faculty member on my dissertation committee said that she thought all my scholarship would be fatally flawed by my Mormonism. Now this is not because I’m a traditional Mormon, but because I’m in constant dissonance, because I’m in conflict, because that makes me FIGHT against things.

At least at Sunstone I heard and watched people, especially in a session called Tell Your Story (or something like that), talk about leading this double-life thing. When I was a little girl I was fascinated by a spy show called “I led Three Lives”. Do I like being a spy? A dissident? A secret-keeper?

But those of us trying to do stuff like leading double lives, or triple lives, really need people to talk to to figure out how to manage it. Otherwise we might jump off the cliff as Dan Wotherspoon said he is trying to help people NOT do.
fMhLisa Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 5:58 PM
I have had these same feeling many many times. But interestingly, as my son is starting to reach Sunbeam age, I’m finding I’m liking the lesson this teaches my Son even less than the lessons it teaches my daughters. I don’t want my son to think that he needn’t listen to womens stories, that his sisters play no important roles in our church and our history. I don’t want my son to “accept the status quo as normal” as you did. This ingrained entitlement must be corrosive to men’s souls.
Ardis Says:
August 18th, 2006 at 9:28 PM
Rory, Primary is preparing your daughter for Relief Society, where we don’t hear any women’s stories or read any statements by women. Sometimes a woman will be mentioned or quoted in the Visiting Teaching message, but not always.

My Relief Society president has me write a page about some woman in church history for the monthly RS bulletin. I modified the call slightly to make it “some woman that nobody has ever heard of before.” I’m not really sure whether the sisters in my ward care about these pages; I’m having a blast identifying these women and telling their stories.

But it’s a lot of work — maybe more work than most Primary presidents want to go to — to present feminine examples.
RorySwensen Says:
August 19th, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Rosalynde – I hope they are aware, and I hope such an awareness is eventually reflected on Sunday.

fMhLisa – I agree. Though my awareness didn’t just happen this past week (it’s been buidling for the last 15 years) this particular class seemed to be a good opportunity to express it.

Ardis – Wow! Sounds like you could have another book in the works?
New Guy Says:
August 20th, 2006 at 10:43 AM
It is my hope to find persons who, like me, are interested in living good and ethical lives,
but who find the common religions in existence today unsatisfying at best, or, at worst,
quite disagreeable and repugnant.

I hope to find persons who have wide-ranging intellectual and non-intellectual interests,
persons who enjoy reading and discussion of science, history, and many other fields,
persons who enjoy a walk on a nice day, or a soak in a hottub on a Saturday afternoon,
persons who value reason, not faith. The religions I see in action in this day and age
seem quite intent on indoctrinating their members and prosletyzing for more. Their members
will spend large amounts of time and effort in “faith-promoting” activities, sometimes even
at the expense of their relationships with those who might not share their faith. It seems
to me that those religions have no place for an agnostic such as me, that they will not seek
out my opinion, nor try to understand my reasoning. In fact, I suspect they would not tolerate
my opinion, should I express it openly in their midst. (I have seen books by such “dangerous”
authors as Roger Launius and Jan Shipps turned around on a shelf so that their titles could not
be seen.) They have their organization, and if I should call its history and doctrines into
question, they might call me “anti” or even avoid socializing with me.

Well, I am here to encourage those of you who, like me, think that many religious claims are
highly suspect and almost certainly false. You are not crazy to question a claim that a man
was able to walk on the surface of a lake (water in liquid state; not frozen). This is only
one example of such a highly questionable claim; there are *many* others. You are not crazy;
there is nothing wrong with your skepticism. There will be those who intimate that you are
missing something, or somehow lacking. Do not let them worry you. Develop what I call
“immunity to religion.”

As I said above, it is my hope to discover persons who hold a somewhat similar world-view
as my own, and to engage them in discussion. I am optimistic that our discussions would
be enjoyable and thought-provoking.
jeanne Says:
August 20th, 2006 at 11:59 AM
The thing that fascinates me is that we as humans seek out other humans. We do want to discuss, and to talk walks and to soak in hot tubs–together. Of course my self-defintion as introspective loner would prohibit such community and group activities to part-time. But I relate to this desire, this desire to find the like-minded and to share time together. I think that is behind much of the religious impulse and the reason why people will gradually transform themselves and their beliefs towards group conformity. Yet skeptics and nonbelievers also share the same need to connect with other human beings. We want to find people like us, to feel some sense of acceptance and belonging. My family is at church right now and I’m home alone. Sometimes it feels intolerable to listen to the group consensus of belief when I can’t share it. But I’m lonely, so sometimes I go with them and try to keep a foot in the door. I’m human.
Preston Bissell Says:
August 21st, 2006 at 2:15 PM
New Guy says:
It is my hope to find persons who, like me, are interested in living good and ethical lives,
but who find the common religions in existence today unsatisfying at best, or, at worst,
quite disagreeable and repugnant.

I reply:
Well, you’ve found one of them. Perhaps its a remnant of my days as a Mormon, but I honestly believe that a “good and ethical” life is the best way to go. For one thing, it’s actually the *easiest* course through life. You don’t have to remember what you said/did in the past that way.
Like you, I haven’t found *any* religion
that I particularly care for. Buddhism comes the closest. (My brother claims to be a Buddhist, but istm that he has to work awfully hard at it. I don’t want to have to go to retreats or concentrate on my medidation as much as he does.)
Getting back to the topic that started this thread(Book of Mormon historicity); once I was satisfied in my own mind that the BoM is NOT a historical document, it took a lot of pressure off of me to try to believe in all of the other stuff that religion required of me.
I am now quite happy as an Apathetic Agnostic: I don’t know, and I don’t care.
fMhLisa Says:
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:00 AM
Sorry Rory, I didn’t mean to cast any aspersion on you, I’m sure your awareness has been budding longer than my own . . . I was just saying it doesn’t only harm our daughters is all.
fMhLisa Says:
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:14 AM
Ardis, if you do have a desire to publish your bio-sketchs in someplace other than your RS bulletin, fMh would love a series of guest posts like that! (Is it very bad taste to solicit guest posts on a “rival” blog?
RorySwensen Says:
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:10 AM
I didn’t take it that way, Lisa, and I think your point about it being a problem for boys also is a very good one.

I didn’t give this a single thought until I was serving a mission. The sister missionaries – most especially the older ones, but also the younger 20-somethings – were pretty impressive. But we, as 19 and 20 year old boys, were leaders, with our first qualification that we had a Y chromosome. When I had sisters in my district it struck me that they seemed to have it together more than I, and could do as well or better than I if they were given the chance. (I’m generalizing here, but I hope you understand.)

The seed was planted and subsequent experiences and observations helped it to sprout over the years. But now, in the past few years, with a daughter growing up and finding her own way in life, it has grown significantly.

I’m getting there.
Ross Anderson Says:
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:52 AM
Amy said: ?¢Ç¨?ìBecause, for me, I do believe in the CORE values of the gospel: service. Kindness. Sacrifice. The stuff that Christ taught.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I said:
Amy, it seems to me that the core value of the LDS gospel is exaltation. That principle seems to me to drive everything else. I believe this is what (in response to Matt) separates Mormonism from other faiths that espouse service, kindness and sacrifice. For LDS, those virtues are rooted in a completely different world view. See my article about this at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_200604/ai_n16430997

In response to Stephen’s original article, I believe I remember reading a quote from GK Chesterton to the effect that the purpose of having an open mind is to be able to close it firmly upon the truth at some point.
Denae Says:
August 23rd, 2006 at 12:07 PM
I believe that for some people, the process of challenge, studying, questioning, etc. is as necessary to their happiness and their nature as painting is to an artist. No one questions that an artist “has” to paint in order to be happy, they have to express those feelings in themselves. In the same light, those that are not artistic do not have to paint to be happy.

But we can’t seem to convince the importance of this to those that do not have this requirement in their life to examine to the ‘nth’ degree things that are important like religion. Some people are perfectly content to read the scriptures, listen to conference talks, listen to talks in church and they even smile through karaoke Sunday, aka Fast and Testimony meeting. I don’t consider them stupid or wrong any more than I consider a non-artist any less worthy.

I know that I could never stop challenging and questioning my religion, I’ll never be done. It is an ingrained part of my personality, probably why I became a scientist. There are some people that are content to never know how to change the oil in their car, to not know how to take a computer apart, etc. and their are some people who as soon as they buy a piece of electronics, their fingers literally itch to take it apart.

One type of person is not better than another but there needs to be an understanding between both types of the inherent nature that drives both types to do what they do.
Raising California Says:
August 23rd, 2006 at 4:15 PM
I’d think it great if they had cardboard cut-outs of the women too. Particularly the year of Old Testament studies, when women are easy to find.

However, once we have the pictures of women of the Old Testament, we’ll be talking about why the women are all younger than the men and why the women are anachonistically wearing make-up.
Mark IV Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 12:59 PM
I’m not sure what I say will be helpful, but you asked…

I think y’all are taking yourselves waaayy too seriously, and are overreacting.

A few months ago, I sat in a testimony meeting where a good and stalwart man told about a BSA leadership training meeting he had attended. He described it as being so spiritual that the only other time he had felt that way was in the celestial room at the temple. It was right then that I started to hear some twilight zone music playing softly in the background. Can you forgive me if I suggest that some of the ’stoners give off this unsettling vibe as well?

Please note – I’m not discounting anybody’s experience. When you say that you finally felt at home at the symposium, I believe you, and I’m happy for you. The value of Sunstone, IMO, is to provide a kind of way station for people who are en route to somewhere. For some, it is fuller integration into the church, and for others, it is an exit, I hope with dignity intact. But I think it is an error to mistake the way station for the destination itself.

Lots of people think the church is wonderful and that any criticism is unwarranted and harmful. My guess is that most ’stoners react stongly and negatively to that view. The symposium quite regularly hands the open microphone to good and wonderful people who cheerfully identify themselves as apostates. Is it really that hard to understand why some of our co-religionists think it is harmful? Sunstone folks are every bit as provincial in their views and narrow in their outlook as their Ensign reading brothers and sisters. And I fault the ’stoners for this because they claim to be sensitized to it and manifestly are not.

The other thing I find unsettling is the cult of personality that surrounds the proceedings. A typical bloggernacle description of the recent symposium can be summarized like this:
“First I met X. He is SO COOL. Oh, then I went to Y’s presentation. It was AWESOME!!! And then, can you believe it? I actually got to HAVE LUNCH with Z!!! No way am I missing next year! We will plan our vacation around it!” Honestly, doesn’t it sound like a 14 y.o. girl at a Backstreet Boys concert?

To sum up: I glad Sunstone is there for those who find it valuable. I have found it valuable myself. In the same way, I’m glad that boy scouts and homeschooling workshops are there for my fellow saints who find them valuable. But when we start to bear our testimonies of those things, we are missing the real gospel, because it is bigger and grander than any of them. If we want to make any progress at bridge building, we need to quit taking ourselves so seriously. Our own little pet projects just aren’t that important, and we shouldn’t be surprised when others tell us so.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 5:29 PM
Steven Carter once asked, “A Little Contention Here, Waiter!” (See: May 8, 2006). Finally, someone delivers the goods.

I guess you better count me in with the 14 y.o. girls… I had Michael Quinn and Dan Vogel sign my Sunstone Program and then had it framed for my wall; I’ve since placed it next to my Backstreet Boys poster, he deadpanned.

I’ve seen plenty of grown men and women turn into giggling boys and girls when Thomas Monson or Russell Nelson or Sheri Dew or Chieko Okazaki or Richard Bushman enter the room. I think it is natural to be enthusiastic, if not a little star struck when you meet someone whom you admire, someone who has inspired you. In that regard, I don’t think Sunstoners are any different than anyone else, LDS or otherwise.

I’m puzzled by your comment: “But I think it is an error to mistake the way station for the destination itself.” What, a final spiritual destination? A final repository of truth?

I don’t think Sunstone is a way station or a destination for truth or spiritual sustenance any more so than the Church is a way station or destination for such ends. Sunstone is a venue that encourages open dialogue related to Mormon thought and experience. As long as one is interested in such a dialgue, one will be interested in Sunstone. I would say the same for the Church. Those that make the Church or Sunstone the only destination, or the sole venue for spritual sustenance or a search for truth are probably shortchanging themselves.

For many of the giggling boys and girls you malign, Sunstone is the first “way station” on their search for spirit and truth that is *outside* of the Church. As such, it can taste like a tall, cool glass of water after a long, hot march through a barren desert. You forget how good water tastes when you haven’t had it for awhile. To those who drink water on a daily basis, either in the Church or out, its easy to look at the dehydrated soul with the wet lips and the goofy smile on his face and say, “Don’t get so excited… it’s just water.”
Preston Bissell Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 8:47 PM
Matt Says:

For many of the giggling boys and girls you malign, Sunstone is the first ?¢Ç¨?ìway station?¢Ç¨¬ù on their search for spirit and truth that is *outside* of the Church. As such, it can taste like a tall, cool glass of water after a long, hot march through a barren desert. You forget how good water tastes when you haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t had it for awhile. To those who drink water on a daily basis, either in the Church or out, its easy to look at the dehydrated soul with the wet lips and the goofy smile on his face and say, ?¢Ç¨?ìDon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t get so excited?¢Ç¨¬¶ it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s just water.?¢Ç¨¬ù

My Comment:

I’m not certain that Sunstone was my first “way station” on my journey out of Mormonism. I think that “Dialogue” might have had that honor, although I stopped subscribing to that journal a number of years ago.
The role that Sunstone Magazine played in my journey is providing an occasional glimpse at alternative viewpoints. (I never had the opportunity to attend a Symposium, fwiw.)
However, the time finally arrived where Sunstone Magazine no longer played a role of much importance in my continuing journey. ISTM that the editors of Sunstone want to demonstrate that it is possible to be a skeptic/questioner and still be a “faithful” Mormon. There was a time when that seemed quite commendable to me. However, it occurred to me one day that I simply was no longer interested in even trying to do that. So, I let my subscription to Sunstone lapse.
I continue to have an interest in Mormon culture, because it is part of my personal history. I have come to accept the fact that “The Mormon Experience” means many different things to different people. There is no such thing as “one-size-fits-all” when it comes to religion in general, and apparently to Mormonism in particular. What I came to realize is that the “size” that apparently fits most “active” Mormons no longer fits me. But, grudgingly, I am coming to accept the idea that it might fit others.
But, to return to the point, Sunstone *was* “like a tall, cool glass of water” at one point in my life. It would be a mistake to trivialize its impact on the lives of people.
stephencarter Says:
August 24th, 2006 at 9:08 PM
Mark,

I appreciate your comments. They pointed out what kind of rhetoric I felt I had to use in order to make myself heard.

See, the critics of Sunstone took a very strong stance, so I felt that, to make my case, I had to take a strong stance too. That’s something I’ve been trying to escape: letting other people set the premise and tone of the conversation. And the tone and premise I dislike getting trapped in the most is the “one true church” premise.

That’s the very reason I was hoping to discuss the approach of the critical authors here, I wanted to prod that black and white presentation and find a find a space for communication.

I’m drawn to your approach, a more disinterested approach. Perhaps Sunstone really is a bunch of people getting together for the same reason a flock of birds gets together, for comfort and a little squawking. But at the same time, as Matt pointed out, in order to go to Sunstone in the first place, you have to really care about Mormonism. People who don’t know William Shatner from Patrick Stewart don’t go to Star Trek conventions.

The problem is, Sunstone folks care.

The problem is, anti-Sunstone folks care.

Caring seems to be the problem.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 1:22 AM
Great discussion.

I don’t know if there is any line between the LDS Church proper and Sunstone….I know one is perceived, but I’ve not yet felt it. I discovered the magazine on my mission and remember feeling guilty about opening it up….but that left as I read it. Same with the symposium…I was really nervous about going my first time. But again, that vanished once there. My conservative younger brother came with me this year. He’s leaving for a mission next week. BAsically had the same experience–felt unsure on the way there and uplifted on the way out.

But while we’re talking about lines:

the only one I’ve really felt is between two types of sunstoners…two types that seem very different to me. The one type participates to be uplifted, to study, to question, etc. Whether they be active or less, Mormon, ex-mormon, post-mormon, non-mormon, fundamentalist mormon, etc….they are there to learn and teach. The other kind are there to whore attention and self-agrandize. I had a conversation last year with someone who had to mention that she was excommunicated about once ever-other sentence….like it was a badge of honor. I don’t expect it to be something to hide or be ashamed of–in some cases people should be proud of it (Lavina Anderson and Mike Quinn come to mind). But in this case it just seemed that he was bragging himself up. Lame.

That’s not unique to sunstone, or any other group. I think there’s the same line of demarcation in the Church (and maybe its even more fostered there–a lot of testimony meetings seem to go that way, don’t they?). But its still something I sense at the symposiums and in some of the articles published.

But………of course this is all coming from me….a narcissistic, kissass social climber obsessed with my image. So……huh.
Mark IV Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 11:03 AM
stephencarter,

Thanks for your response. Just so you know, I don’t think the words you employed in your post were over the top at all. I understood you to be asking for input, so I gave mine. My reaction is not so much to your post as it is to the testimony bearing about the One and Only True and Living Symposium going on in the ‘nacle, which I find offputting.

I applaud you efforts to find some common ground, it certainly needs to be done. But True Believers of any stripe are hard to collaborate with, and to the extent that ’stoners act like True Believers, the burden lies with them to dial it back a little. It is ironic and sad that Sunstone devotees often replicate the same behavior they find so distasteful in the rank and file membership.

Again, I will reiterate my belief that Sunstone does much good. If it helps good folks like you and Matt T. find peace, I’m glad.

Matt,

Contention? Malign? Sorry, I didn’t intend to malign, or contend with, anyone. If you can help me understand where I did, I will be happy to either rephrase or withdraw the offending statement. My intent was to give feedback, but as I read between the lines of your comment and stephen’s comment, perhaps I overstated my position.

You’re right that many people in the church treat GAs like rock stars. But that sort of giddy, breathless, squealing, wet-my-pants enthusiasm for hero worship is beneath the dignity of those who purport to be grown-ups, don’t you agree? BTW, this isn’t new. I wrote a letter to Peggy Fletcher Stack back when she was still Peggy Fletcher and voiced the same opinion.

Your claim that Sunstone provides a venue for dialogue about Mormon thought and tradition is accurate as far as it goes. I agree with you, in fact. That is Sunstone at its best. But in the spirit of calling a spade a spade, we need to acknowledge that Sunstone is sometimes not at its best, and we can’t blame our more traditional brothers and sisters for noticing the ax-grinders Sunstone seems to attract. Some on this thread have already pointed that out.

In short, I hope you allow me my agnosticism. I am a jack ’stoner who wishes the Church of Sunstone well, but also wishes they would occasionally examine their assumptions.

And I wanted it noted – it was YOU, Matt Thurston, who applied the term “goofy” to those who find refreshment with Sunstone.
Ardis Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 4:20 PM
The divide is real, but it’s more complex than a simple chasm with “us” on one side and “them” on the other, so bridge-building isn’t an especially appropriate metaphore for me.

I know fine people who regularly participate in Sunstone. I have gone several years, and even presented a few times. I attended one session this year, and then only because a friend was speaking. For the past two years when I read the program and eavesdrop on hallway conversations, I get a cold, black feeling that I can only interpret as a spiritual warning. I didn’t see many sessions in the program that seemed calculated to build, while there were many that seemed designed as forums for complaint and whining. I don’t see any need to go to the symposium any more, at least until the program swings back toward the moderate.

On the other hand, I’ve attended the FAIR conference for the past two years. The feeling I got there was just as cold and black. Even though the program topics were clearly intended to build or restore faith with intellectual support, the audience seemed far less interested in hearing new material than in hearing anti-Mormons described in arrogant, amusing ways. There would be absolutely no reaction from the dead-silent audience for 20 minutes, then the speaker would casually mention Ed Decker and there would suddenly be wolfish chuckles from all directions, even before the speaker had reached the supposedly funny part of his comment. I see no need to return to FAIR, either, anymore than to Sunstone.

I’d like the conservative, faithful intent of FAIR without the smugness and self-righteousness. I’d like the tolerance and warmth of the Sunstone credo without the emphasis on dissent and failure. So who’s on which side of what divide, and what do I bridge from and to?

I don’t like Dialogue for the same reason that I don’t like the Sunstone Symposium.

MHA is the best unofficial Mormon community I’ve found so far. AML comes close, except that there’s too much pomposity about why ordinary Mormons don’t support their Great Art. I’m going to try the new Scholars in the Humanities that’s coming up in a few months.

And I keep trying to find an online group that matches my interests and temperament. Not much luck so far.
Rick Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 9:10 PM
“I didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t see many sessions in the program that seemed calculated to build, while there were many that seemed designed as forums for complaint and whining”

Which sessions stood out to you as representative of those two categories?
Matt Thurston Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 9:22 PM
Ardis, have you tried Mormon-Library? Kidding of course. I enjoyed your comments there before your self-imposed exile. I hope you’ll continue hanging around Sunstone Blog.

Mark IV, sorry if I read too much into your post. I actually enjoy a little contention, as long as it isn’t personal. I enjoyed your post, but disagree with some of your broad brush strokes. I’d like to take on your assertion that “Sunstone folks are every bit as provincial in their views and narrow in their outlook as their Ensign reading brothers and sisters.” I disagree, but my response will have to wait for another day. Maybe a blog post. By the way, I am actually Matt III. My son is MAT IV, but we call him “Quade”, for what I hope are obvious reasons.

Having interacted with Preston quite a bit at another site, I got a kick out of this comment: “But, grudgingly, I am coming to accept the idea that it (Mormonism) might fit others.” Grudgingly? For you that’s an understatement! I hope you keep posting here.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 9:28 PM
My thoughts on Stephen’s post…

Like you, my spiritual switch is triggered by Sunstone. Like you, I feel very much at home, part of a community. If Sunstoners share one thing in common, it is that they get their spiritual ?¢Ç¨?ìjones?¢Ç¨¬ù by asking questions. Many TBM Latter-day Saints seem to get their ?¢Ç¨?ìjones?¢Ç¨¬ù from affirming answers. For example:

Question: Who was Joseph Smith?
Answer: A Prophet of God who ushered in the Restoration of God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s true Church

The ?¢Ç¨?ìQuestion?¢Ç¨¬ù above is fascinating to Sunstoners. How much printer ink has been spilled in Sunstone Magazine, how many Symposium sessions have been devoted to exploring that question? Yes, Sunstoners offer answers to the question, but they aren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t final answers, more like theories, ideas, sketches?¢Ç¨¬¶ The point is this: the answers are subordinate to the question. We all show up at the Symposium because of the question, not the answer.

The opposite is true for many ?¢Ç¨?ìIron Rod?¢Ç¨¬ù Saints. The question ?¢Ç¨?ìWho was Joseph Smith??¢Ç¨¬ù isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really asked at Church, and if it is, it is a formality. We are there to affirm the ?¢Ç¨?ìAnswer?¢Ç¨¬ù: Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. How much printer ink has been spilled in lesson manuals, how many testimonies have been delivered from the pulpit devoted to affirming that answer? The point is this: the question is subordinate to the answer. We show up at Church to affirm the answer, not ask the question.

It isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t surprising to me that to an Iron Rod ?¢Ç¨?ìaffirmer?¢Ç¨¬ù, a community of questioners would feel like a ?¢Ç¨?ìdark?¢Ç¨¬ù place.

So it seems that most people engage or feel the ?¢Ç¨?ìspirit?¢Ç¨¬ù either by asking questions, or affirming answers. Maybe some people have a mixture of both, but I think we lean one way or the other. I think the early members of the Church were primarily Questioners not satisfied with affirming answers in their previous religious traditions. At some point, early I think, the Church evolved into an institution that rewarded Affirmers, and discouraged Questioners.

I have a theory that many people that leave the Church, especially young people, are ?¢Ç¨?ìquestioners?¢Ç¨¬ù, or Liahonas, and they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even know it. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m NOT talking about people that have fully studied the gospel and/or church history and decided the Church wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t true; I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m talking about people — teens and young adults mostly — who just kind of drift away from the Church without really knowing much about it.

Our youth are brought up with a set of behaviors to observe and answers to affirm (?¢Ç¨?ìI know this Church is true?¢Ç¨¬¶?¢Ç¨¬ù). Therefore, for our Youth who happen to be DNA Affirmers, the Church is a wonderful place to be. They feel the spirit burning in their bosom. Our Youthful DNA Questioners quickly find out their questions are discouraged, or patronized, or largely left unanswered. What do we tell them instead? Pray and/or fast to find out if X, Y, or Z answer is true. The emphasis is on the answer, but their spiritual switch is the question! By the time the hit their late teens or early twenties, they just drift away. We accuse them of being spiritually lazy. Or we wonder in puzzlement, ?¢Ç¨?ìFor some reason the Church just didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to stick for him/her??¢Ç¨¬ù Its no wonder to me: we failed to engage their spirit. I sometimes wonder if many of these kids would stick around if we threw them a Sunstone magazine and said, ?¢Ç¨?ìHere kid, ask questions until your heart?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s content.?¢Ç¨¬ù
stephencarter Says:
August 25th, 2006 at 10:59 PM
Ardis said:

?¢Ç¨?ìI didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t see many sessions in the program that seemed calculated to build, while there were many that seemed designed as forums for complaint and whining?¢Ç¨¬ù

I say:

What an interesting comment. Thinking back through the program, I can see how you could say that about some of the sessions. The ones I attended were quite different. One of the sessions I helped put together was about helping your teenagers negotiate the terrain of sexual desire. It was a humdinger, very building for me at least.

I also attended a session involving couples who had somehow stayed intact through significant spiritual and religious crises. That was my favorite.

Another fascinating one was Rick Jeppson’s on how to use language to explore one’s ideas and feelings about the gospel, rather than sticking to just the cliches.

However, Ardis, I also strongly agree that there are groups that, though they seem to fill some people’s needs, leave me cold. I was involved with an online group for a year where I was able to find my online voice and learn to direct my encounters with religion in a more constructive way. It was a lifeline to me. But after that year was over the people there seemed stuck, they seemed unwilling to move on. And then new people would move in, starting from scratch and going through the same steps. It got frustrating, and soon the group had nothing to offer me, though I tried to offer it something. But they didn’t really want what I had, so I moved on.

For now, this forum is doing well for me. The people here are thoughtful, intelligent and spiritual. I think the quality of conversation here is quite high compared with most blogs. Hopefully you’ll stick around and keep that quality up.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 7:58 AM
Some of my thoughts on Stephen’s post…

Like you, my spiritual switch is triggered by Sunstone. Like you, I feel very much at home, part of a community. If Sunstoners share one thing in common, it is that they get their spiritual ?¢Ç¨?ìjones?¢Ç¨¬ù by asking questions. Many TBM Latter-day Saints seem to get their ?¢Ç¨?ìjones?¢Ç¨¬ù from affirming answers. For example:

Question: Who was Joseph Smith?
Answer: A Prophet of God who ushered in the Restoration of God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s true Church

The ?¢Ç¨?ìQuestion?¢Ç¨¬ù above is fascinating to Sunstoners. How much printer ink has been spilled in Sunstone Magazine, how many Symposium sessions have been devoted to exploring that question? Yes, Sunstoners offer answers to the question, but they aren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t final answers, more like theories, ideas, sketches?¢Ç¨¬¶ The point is this: the answers are subordinate to the question. We all show up at the Symposium because of the question, not the answer.

The opposite is true for many ?¢Ç¨?ìIron Rod?¢Ç¨¬ù Saints. The question ?¢Ç¨?ìWho was Joseph Smith??¢Ç¨¬ù isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really asked at Church, and if it is, it is a formality. We are there to affirm the ?¢Ç¨?ìAnswer?¢Ç¨¬ù: Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God. How much printer ink has been spilled in lesson manuals, how many testimonies have been delivered from the pulpit devoted to affirming that answer? The point is this: the question is subordinate to the answer. We show up at Church to affirm the answer, not ask the question.

It isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t surprising to me that to an Iron Rod ?¢Ç¨?ìaffirmer?¢Ç¨¬ù, a community of questioners would feel like a ?¢Ç¨?ìdark?¢Ç¨¬ù place.

So it seems that most people engage or feel the ?¢Ç¨?ìspirit?¢Ç¨¬ù either by asking questions, or affirming answers. Maybe some people have a mixture of both, are “bi-spiritual”,?Ç¬but I think most of us tend to lean one way or the other. I think the early members of the Church were primarily Questioners not satisfied with affirming answers in their previous religious traditions. At some point, early I think, the Church evolved into an institution that rewarded Affirmers, and discouraged Questioners.

I have a theory that many people that leave the Church, especially young people, are ?¢Ç¨?ìquestioners?¢Ç¨¬ù, or Liahonas, and they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even know it. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m NOT talking about people that have fully studied the gospel and/or church history and decided the Church wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t true; I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m talking about people — teens and young adults mostly — who just kind of drift away from the Church without really knowing much about it.

Our youth are brought up with a set of behaviors to observe and answers to affirm (?¢Ç¨?ìI know this Church is true?¢Ç¨¬¶?¢Ç¨¬ù). Therefore, for our Youth who happen to be DNA Affirmers, the Church is a wonderful place to be. They feel the spirit burning in their bosom. On the other hand, our Youthful DNA Questioners quickly find out that their questions are discouraged, or patronized, or largely left unanswered. What do we tell them instead? Pray and/or fast to find out if X, Y, or Z answer is true. The emphasis is on the answer, but their spiritual switch is the question! By the time the hit their late teens or early twenties, they just drift away. We accuse them of being spiritually lazy. Or we wonder in puzzlement, ?¢Ç¨?ìFor some reason the Church just didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to stick for him/her??¢Ç¨¬ù Its no wonder to me: we failed to engage their spirit. I sometimes wonder if many of these kids would stick around if we threw them a Sunstone magazine and said, ?¢Ç¨?ìHere kid, ask questions until your heart?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s content.?¢Ç¨¬ù
Christian Y. Cardall Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 2:47 PM
I’m one of those who tends to think the divide is real, or can be in many cases. My most recent attempt to explain why is here.

Stephen’s post here highlights the fact that notions of community are a big factor in the divide. At the end of the day the Church is about developing a Zion community, and it perceives itself as revealing through prophets to the world what God wants Zion to be like. I gather that for some (though surely not all) Sunstone becomes a preferred or replacement community to one’s local ward, and once this occurs the divide is concretely realized, in my opinion.

When people say they feel the Spirit (or a lack thereof) in a particular group setting, as described in the post and some previous comments, I think to a large extent what is going on is nothing supernatural, but simply the human experience of feeling at peace with a particular supportive group with whom one resonates and would like to cast one’s lot with (or on the flip side a group with which one feels out of place, or seems to be opposed to a group in which one is already invested).
Bored in Vernal Says:
August 26th, 2006 at 6:44 PM
#11 Matt–
Thankyouthankyouthankyou for that!!! I am printing out your comment and putting it in my journal (after I sleep with it under my pillow tonight.) I DO love questions, I DO! I DO!
And even more important, I think your post is helping me to come to terms with people that have irritated me immensely up until this very moment.
I am experiencing Enlightenment. You are my new guru.
lou Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 10:57 AM
Matt’s observations of the questioners v. affirmers rings true for me. Growing up in the church, I never felt comfortable with various aspects, but could never articulate my discomfort because I was not allowed the vocabulary nor the opportunity to express such. It was only years later, during college and beyond that I came to see the questions were real and part of my experience should be to ask them. I struggle with the fact that the “answers” to many of my questions are not comfortable either. Sunstone offers a place where questions are the norm, and that is comforting in itself.
Bored in Vernal Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 1:54 PM
Hey! You changed the order on me. My favorite scripture is now Matt 12.
Bored in Vernal Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 2:22 PM
Well ya know I’ve never been a big fan of the motherhood=priesthood equation. But perhaps this is a time when turnaround is fair play. The birth of my son was a sacrament to me. He issued from my body accompanied by water and the Spirit. A joyous, exhuberant meeting! Now you get the same thing. You and your son can only benefit from this bonding experience as, through water and the Spirit, you become his spiritual father and usher him into the body of Latter-day Saints. Ultimately he will decide what relationship he will have with Deity and with the Church. But for now you and he can unite in your connection to the spiritual forces of the Universe. Good luck with your struggles and a big hug from me on that special day.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 3:39 PM
Well, thanks for your kind remarks, B.i.V. I’m not sure that my observation was all that original… in some ways, my comment was just a riff on Richard Poll’s now 40-year-old talk entitled, “What the Church Means to People Like Me.” If you’ve never read it before, you can find it here (among other places, including Dialogue, I presume):

http://www.zionsbest.com/people.html
RorySwensen Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 3:51 PM
Stephen,

Sometimes we can safely stop wrestling and just experience our culture and our rituals. I think this is one of those times where you can relax and just “be”.

This baptism will be a time to celebrate the best of our people, the best of our teachings, the most inspiring of our hopes. It will be a meaningful and concrete experience for your son, a veritable right of passage on his journey through life. It will also be a time to celebrate among your family – celebrating the event for your son, and the shared beliefs and experiences among one another.

Bored in Vernal is right when she says that “Ultimately [your son] will decide what relationship he will have with Deity and with the Church.” But at this age, he needs to have things fairly concrete. There will be time in the future to talk about the subtleties, to examine the rituals, to question what it is all about – but now isn’t that time for him. Right now it is important for him to belong, to be inspired, to take important steps on his way to becoming a man. This is but one of them.

As he continues to mature he will start to have more questions. He’ll begin to see shades of gray. And he will see a father who not only openly and honestly wrestles with his own spirituality, but who also celebrates and values his culture and heritage. I think he’s a pretty lucky little boy.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 4:15 PM
You’ve just expressed a question or fear I think about all the time. The last “official” ordinance I performed was the blessing of my third child. This was fairly easy for me in the sense that I had very few misgivings. In fact, the official naming and blessing of a child is a tradition I felt very good about, a rite that feels to me like a three-way link between myself, my child, and God. In many ways I likened myself unto Kunte Kinte from Alex Haley’s “Roots”, a book I’m very fond of. In it, according to the Mandinka tradition, the father carries the child into a field by himself late at night, and under the moon and stars, whispers the baby’s name in his/her ear three times before anyone else can hear the baby’s name. Then the father holds the child upward to the heavens and says, “Behold, the only thing greater than yourself!”

Unlike naming blessings, Baptism, and later, Priesthood blessings, seem to be a four-way link between child, father, God, and the Church. As you say above, the rite comes packaged with a host of meanings, behaviors, expectations, etc. I feel unsure about myself. Fortunately, I have three more years until my oldest is ready for baptism. Hopefully by then I’ll feel less unsure. Until then, I’m just as interested in the responses to this question as you are.

By the way, I heard John Remy say some interesting things about giving his son the priesthood at one of the Sunstone Symposium sessions. Maybe he’ll have something to say…
Bored in Vernal Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Oh, that article is in my journal too. But your turns of phrase are so devastating–”they get their spiritual jones by asking questions…” Richard Poll didn’t use that term, did he?
Matt Thurston Says:
August 27th, 2006 at 5:56 PM
Ha! No, I don’t think Brother Poll, a high council member at the time (I think), used the term “spiritual jones”.

Nor did he theorize that many who leave the Church, especially at an early age, may have been frustrated or closet (closeted to themselves, I mean) Liahonas. They were just bored, and probably didn’t know why. Affirming answers just didn’t speak to them.

I’ve wondered this about a couple of my siblings who have left the Church, who are probably hardwired Questioners like me. I can’t help but wonder if either of them would still be active if they could have plugged into Sunstone’s open-minded and “questioning” community. And who knows if I would have eventually followed them? I had absolutely flat-lined spiritually for about five years until I discovered MHA/Sunstone/Dialogue/Bloggernacle/etc. I’d sit in Elder’s Quorum feeling almost despondant, wondering if I had anything in common with my fellow Elders who seemed happy and perfectly content with the Answers.
johnremy Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Matt, that’s a beautiful Haley reference. Makes me wish I could go back and try it again (if my kids were small enough to lift up towards the heavens).

Stephen, I’ve really struggled with this as well. I kept myself active long enough to baptize both of my children and to give the priesthood to my son. The latter act was so disconcerting (mainly because there would be no parallels for my daughter) that I decided that it would be my last official act (at least for now). Strangely, this has brought me a sense of peace and freedom–I’m no longer the marionette getting all tangled up in the strings. So I’m afraid that I don’t have anything soothing to offer, other than companionship.
janaremy Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 12:09 AM
I can’t tell you the story of my baptizing anyone…But I can tell you how I felt when my children received their ordinances from their father.

I was glad that it was him, and not a generic church leader, who performed the ordinances. The blessings, baptisms, confirmations, and ordination were done with the love and conviction of a parent trying to do the best for his child. When he prayed over our children he didn’t use rote formaulaic phrases, he spoke from his heart and soul, and with great spiritual power.

Though my belief in the salvific necessity of such ordinances may change over time, I will always remember the sincerity with which John performed them. I hope our children will remember that, too.
Mark IV Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 7:58 AM
Matt,

I want to continue to engage on this issue because I think it is tremendously important – I hope you don’t mind.

Christian captured eloquently what I was trying to say in my original reference to way stations. He said:

At the end of the day the Church is about developing a Zion community….I gather that for some (though surely not all) Sunstone becomes a preferred or replacement community to one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s local ward, and once this occurs the divide is concretely realized, in my opinion.

I have no desire to devalue the sense of community people feel with Sunstone. It is important, and can serve valuable purposes for people who feel like square pegs at church. The sense of alienation is real, and we ought to so something to alleviate it. But to the extent something reinforces the alienation, or emphasizes the separateness, I think it is ultimately self-serving and unproductive.

In my opinion, people who see themselves as liahona members ought to have the greatest empathy for others, and should have outstanding skills at connecting to people who are different from themselves. There is plenty of raw material to practice on, after all. Who better to practice inclusion than someone who know what exclusion feels like? I believe you when you say church meetings made you despondent. I know exactly what that feels like, although I’ve never had a five year dry stretch. That must have been rough. But if I’m honest with myself, I have to acknowledge that the loneliness I felt at those times is not qualitatively different from the struggles felt by the single mother, or the man who is almost overwhelmed by feelings of guilt from previous wrongdoing, and both of those people live in my neighborhood and sit by me each week at church. To the extent that I allow anything to become an ersatz community, I am letting those people down, and, I believe, acting in a way that is contrary to God’s will.

I think you are mostly right that our attitudes and approaches to certain questions are not conciously chosen. Individuals are unique, and it shouldn’t surprise us when some of us see questions where others see answers. But I don’t think you go far enough. I think everybody has questions, we just have different questions. For instance, Peter and Molly are untroubled about the nature of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling, but they are probably very interested in the question of how living with hope can increase charity. A pretty good question, that, and one that I would love to see Sunstone attempt to answer.
Mark IV Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 8:34 AM
My response is pretty close to what Rory said in comment # 2.

Start with the great things about the church. For me, it was inspirational to witness our response to disister relief last Fall in New Orleans and the Mississippi coast. Each weekend, over 1500 men left work on Friday, drove all night (some as far as 600 miles), worked all day Saturday, slept on the ground that night, worked all day Sunday and drove home Sunday night in order to be at work on Monday. They did this at their own expense, and they did it for 12 weeks. I don’t think any other organization on earth could accomplish that voluntarily, and I don’t think those results can be completely disconnected from our doctrine.

So my suggestion would be to see the baptism as an event where you initiate your son into a culture that produces that kind of people.
stephencarter Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 8:37 AM
Mark,

You’re right on the money. That’s exactly what I’m interested in, building community in my own ward. I addressed this in an article I wrote for Sunstone a year ago. Basically what I was trying to do was open a door to authentic discussion in the classroom setting so that we could find those things out about our fellow ward members. My lessons were always getting mixed reviews though, some people loved them, some hated them. And of course, the ones who hated them made sure the bishop knew about it.

After I published that article, somehow I never got asked to give a lesson again, and even when the bishopric knew my family and I were leaving, somehow none of us were asked to give a farewell talk.

I’m still looking for a way to create environments in church that facilitate people actually talking with eachother. This new ward I’m in has a lot of possibilities, but first I need to learn their style and figure out how to talk with them. My last ward thought it was a Utah ward and no one was willing to stop being a turbo Mormon long enough to be real. Not that I was perfect.

What I’m interested in is people’s stories rather than their exhortations. I guess the reason I liked the symposium so much was because it had what I wanted to feel in church: a chance of communicating with people in a nonjudgmental, yet rigorous, environment.

That’s what I was addressing in my King David post , how it seems to me that the focus on teaching correct behavior squashes the potential of building community in church environments.
Nick Literski Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Janaremy’s comment about fathers performing ordinances is well stated. I didn’t plan it that way, but I came out of the closet about six weeks before my youngest daughter’s baptism. It was very important for her to have “daddy” perform that baptism, but “daddy” wasn’t able to do so. I was technically worthy at the time, but no longer believing in the whole model of “sin” and “atonement.” Further, it would have required hiding the fact that I had come out until after the baptism was performed (though I’d technically be worthy, I seriously doubt many bishops would allow such circumstances). Eventually, my daughter would have been old enough to figure out the conditions under which I had performed the ordinance, and she likely would have been troubled by it.

As her father, I helped her select a good man to perform the ordinance. As the situation at home deteriorated, I was unable to remain in the area to attend the baptism, but I felt things were in good hands. I had previously expressed to my ex-wife that I had no problem with any good man performing the ordinance–I only drew the line at one person who was NOT, under any circumstances, to baptize my daughter. I was determined that my overbearing, “play the family patriarch,” egotistical father-in-law would NOT perform that ordinance, particularly since he would have taken a certain delight in doing it when I couldn’t.

Of course, my daughter’s choice of who would baptize her didn’t end up doing it. You can guess who DID end up performing the ordinance.
Preston Bissell Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 12:07 PM
stephencarter says:

I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m still looking for a way to create environments in church that facilitate people actually talking with eachother. This new ward I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m in has a lot of possibilities, but first I need to learn their style and figure out how to talk with them. My last ward thought it was a Utah ward and no one was willing to stop being a turbo Mormon long enough to be real. Not that I was perfect.

I respond:

Please let us know if you are successful. I know many people, including myself, who tried to create such an environment. I was not successful, nor has anybody else I know who has tried to do so.
Ultimately, I decided that I could neither change the environment, nor live with the one that was emerging, so I disengaged completely.
I now find my religious environment almost entirely online.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 2:41 PM
Mark IV (#20):

The Church may talk about developing a Zion Community, but it seems to be is on its own, rather narrow, terms. If you look at Mormon Theology at its most expansive, or highest level, there may be room for people like me. But as it is commonly practiced, I feel like a square peg in a round hole. I’d like to integrate more fully into the Mormon community, but I can only conform my beliefs and behavior so much until I cease to be myself.

Sunstone is a supplementary community that fills in the holes the Church cannot. I feel a closer kinship with the Sunstone community not only because it accepts me on my terms, but because it gives me what I had hoped the Church would give me: intellectual and spiritual nourishment.

I don’t want my Church/Mormon community to become an ersatz community, but I admit I am short on ideas about how to integrate myself more fully into that community. It doesn’t surprise me when people (like Preston in #22) fail to make it work.

I wonder too if the Mormon Community is really the end-all-be-all community… should this be the ultimate goal, or am I shortchanging myself? Is it a waste of time? Are there bigger and better things out there? Eugene Kovalenko’s comment #10 on community at the “Sunstone Symposium Day 3 – Friday thoughts” Blog Post hit on some questions or suspicions I have relative to the quality of the Mormon Community. (See: http://sunstoneblog.com/?p=96#comments ) I have the book Kovalenko referenced (”A Different Drum” by Scott Peck), but haven’t read it yet. I remain committed to my Mormon community (for a variety of reasons) and have no plans to bail, but it doesn’t keep me from wondering.

Since I am committed to the community, the key question is this: “To the extent that I allow anything to become an ersatz community, I am letting those people down, and, I believe, acting in a way that is contrary to God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s will.” I think I have something to offer my Mormon Community, I just wonder: 1.) how to offer it; and 2.) do they want it?

My next Blog Post on Thursday is actually about integreting personal beliefs that are at odds with institutional beliefs. I offer no answers, only questions. I’m interested in feedback.

I dashed this off so I’m not sure it fully articulates my thoughts on this subject. But its a start…

I appreciate and enjoy reading your comments.
Mark IV Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 7:41 PM
Stephen (#21)

I suspend my criticism of fanboy groupieism and hero worship long enough to tip my hat in your direction. A man who can put Fear and Trembling and Barry Manilow together in the same coherent sentence is a man worth listening to. Nice going! Actually I had read that article before, but it made even more sense, and was even more enjoyable, the second time through.

I got a laugh out of the advice someone gave you to lower your expectations, because I received that advice myself once. For me, the trick was not so much to lower my expectations, but to change them. Once I quit expecting the three hours of church on Sunday to meet my needs, I became a lot happier. Now I view church attendance as the dues I need to pay to be taken seriously, but most of the service I find satisfying takes place in smaller settings outside of Sunday church meetings. I love, really love, home teaching. I get to visit friends and have conversations with them that serve their needs. I love having people over for dinner, and I find most of them interesting and convivial. There are some wonderful people in my ward and neighborhood who have interesting lives and who have overcome adversity and tragedy that probably would have done me in. I’m grateful to the church for putting these people within my circle of friends.

Just a quick question – I read your King David post with interest, more or less agreeing with your take. Without wanting to focus on the negative, I do need to ask: What’s the deal with comment # 12? I realize you don’t have control over people’s comments, but jeez, you could at least challenge it. If I posted a comment here saying Sunstone was (quote)stupid, BS, crap, evil, crap again, full of farty old men, BS again, anybody who believes it doesn’t have half a brain, the people who started it are a bunch of horny old pervs, hypocrites, liars, con-men, and lies(unquote), I would fully expect you to take exception. When Sunstone allows it bandwidth to be used by someone to peddle this particular brand of shinola, we don’t really need to wonder why Peter and Molly don’t appreciate Sunstone, do we?
janaremy Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 9:29 PM
Nick–
I’m so sorry it didn’t turn out the way that you’d hoped for your daughter. That’s tough stuff, indeed.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 28th, 2006 at 10:31 PM
I hadn’t seen Comment #12 at Stephen’s “David” post until you pointed it out. I agree with Mark, it doesn’t appear to meet the standards of Sunstone Blog’s motto: “Faith Seeking Understanding”. I’ll mention it to the powers that be.

At the same time, its not like Sunstone Blog is the only place where someone manages to slip some shinola past the gatekeepers. I don’t think that comment is representative of most Sunstone Blog comments. If Peter and Molly were to freak out over the exception, then Peter and Molly have no business being anywhere on the Bloggernacle, as I occaisionally bump up against shinola in some of the Bloggernacle’s most hallowed halls.

But thanks for pointing it out.
Mark IV Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 7:00 AM
Thanks, Matt. I am relieved to hear it was an oversight. My comment about Peter and Molly was meant as an attempt to answer Stephen’s original question. Where do people get the idea that Sunstone is hostile to the church? Even though people may not share our views, they aren’t dumb. They know what the Internet is; they know how to type sunstone dot com. And, voila, right there under the official masthead, on a thread to which Wotherspoon himself contributed heavily, is a toxic rant about the church. It really is just a minor housekeeping detail, and as you say, sometimes some pretty obnoxious material gets past the admins. I’m just saying that we ought to be able to recognize Molly’s concerns as having some kind of sound basis, and not dismiss her out of hand. Your response was constructive and appreciated. By the way, I got a chuckle out of your hymn suggestions.

In response to your # 23, I think you are right to see your (and my) association with Sunstone/MHA/Dialogue/bloggernacle as supplemental approaches. Gordon B. Hinckley said:

[Everybody needs] a friend in the Church to whom he can constantly turn, who will walk beside him, who will answer his questions, who will understand his problems.

It is clear to me that those needs often go unmet. That is why I finally concluded that Sunday church was never going to get it done, at least for me. And if I read between the lines of Hinckley’s comment, I think he believes that, too. I think our needs for fellowship and intellectual and spiritual nourishment will be met in settings outside of Sacrament meeting, Sunday school, and Priesthood/RS. That is why I participate here, and elsewhere in the ‘nacle. And that is also why I have tried to go the extra mile in my ward. There is a lot we can do, outside of our official callings.

Matt, thanks for continuing to engage here. From one square peg to another, I can say that I’m enjoying this conversation.
Stephen Carter Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 10:49 AM
I think the interesting thing about that final comment on the King David thread was that it elicited no response. Not that plenty of my comments haven’t gone unresponded to. But evidentally the way the commenter worded his ideas didn’t really resonate with many people on this site.

It would be interesting to talk with that person more and see what kinds of stories led to his/her current attitude.
Dan Says:
August 29th, 2006 at 2:54 PM
Stephen,

This is an issue that is close to my heart, as it’s an issue that I’ve struggled with, too. Bottom line is that I agree with everyone here and encourage you to do the ordinance and enjoy every minute of it. Leave all your conflicted feelings behind.

In his banquet address at Sunstone this year, Ardean Watts speaks about being a designated babysitter during times when family members are participating in temple ordinances but says, “I have participated in the blessing of grandchildren as a true believer and in my heart of hearts I know there is virtue in the ceremony and I rejoice.” Amen.

In an Sunstone editorial I wrote several years ago, I shared my disappointment over a bishop’s decision not to allow me to ordain my son to the priesthood (now some six plus years ago). If interested, here’s a link that story.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/download/editorial_sm.pdf

Have a wonderful time Saturday!Dan
jana Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 11:13 AM
Stephen:
I was thinking about your post last night and I realized that in some ways women might have more freedom to have doubts or heterodox ideas, simply because women usually aren’t in positions where they are having do perform ordinances or espouse doctrine from the pulpit.

While I do wish that both men and women held priesthood offices in the church, perhaps because women can’t, they are fortunate because they are freed from the guilt and frustration that you are feeling over your son’s ordinance.
Dan Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 3:12 PM
My thanks to Mark IV for pointing out the post in question in these past few comments. I, too, hadn’t seen it until noted here in this thread as it was posted the day after the symposium closed and I was vacationing.

I’ve just deleted the post as it clearly was out of harmony with the SunstoneBlog comment policy and mission of the Sunstone Education Foundation.
Stephen Carter Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 4:50 PM
At the same time, perhaps that’s why these things are put in place, to either call the wayward to repentance, or to urge conformity. I can see how events like this might make a person more aware of how he or she is interacting with his or her family or community. Perhaps they are little crucibles to bring out some thought in a person.

Worked with me, I guess.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 12:33 PM
I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m interested in hearing your opinions on how we should express dissent, or even if we should. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m also interested in hearing your personal experiences with dissent: what was the issue, what did you do, how did it work out, would you do anything different?
Jeff G Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 1:54 PM
“I believe same-sex attraction to be a natural, and therefore perfectly acceptable, phenomenon.”

I don’t know if this detracts too much from your post, but what, exactly, do you mean by “natural”? Furthermore, how does something being “natural” in whatever sense you mean it automatically make it perfectly acceptable?
Tom Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 2:13 PM
I know you don’t want to debate the appropriateness of homosexual acts; neither do I. I don’t mind people believing what they want about it. I would just say that the reasoning you give, that natural=acceptable, is pretty weak. You probably have more, better reasons, or at least a more nuanced view than simply that things that we are naturally inclined to do are acceptable to God, but what comes across in your post is inadequate, in my view.

I’m having a hard time answering your questions because I imagine that if I felt that the Church was so far off base, I’m not sure I’d stick around at all. I don’t think that I would have enough confidence that the Church was divinely sanctioned to make it worth it. If I felt strongly enough about it I suppose I’d publicly register my dissent and taking whatever consequences followed.

In my opinion, the case of homosexuality is fundamentally different from the way that the church may have been wrong in the past in that the proscription of homosexual acts is more closely tied to and based on the Plan of Salvation as taught by the church than any of the other things that are cited as mistakes of the church. If exhaltation is reserved for people in man/woman partnerships and if it comprises eternal increase that, by its nature, can only be realized by a man/woman pairing, then the only position the Church can take on homosexuality is the one it is taking. On the other hand, if homosexuality is fine by God, then many of the uniquely Mormon aspects of the Plan of Salvation are false, which means the prophets have been way off base, to the point that they couldn’t rightly be called prophets at all.

The Priesthood ban, if it was against the will of God, which I don’t know for sure but I won’t dispute, isn’t a case of getting the Plan of Salvation wrong, at least not on the same scale; it would be more a case of getting smaller scale details of the pre-existence wrong and misapplying Old Testament notions of priesthood exclusivity.
D. Fletcher Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 2:36 PM
“if homosexuality is fine by God, then many of the uniquely Mormon aspects of the Plan of Salvation are false”

I disagree with this, but I think it’s a very meaty hypothesis, and I hope you’ll provide some specific details Tom.

Just to get you started with a hypothetical:

IF God revealed tomorrow that homosexual relationships can be exalted, and the adopted children (in their families) could be sealed to them for eternity, what other aspects of the Plan of Salvation would this, throw off-kilter? Which prophets would come under intense scrutiny for being so off-base?
MikeInWeHo Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 2:40 PM
“Smaller scale details” ?? So the priesthood ban was really no big deal? It excluded a heckuva lot larger percentage of humanity from the temple than the gay issue does today.

But back to the question of dissent. I think it’s not only possible; it’s imperative, and if God is truly leading this peculiar people it will continue until further change occurs on the gay issue. The new Bennions and McMurrins are already here. Supportive hetersexuals like you, Matt Thurston, and gays like D. Fletcher who just stay in the Church and quietly testify by their very presence and openness.

Think of how very different things are in the Church compared to even two decades ago. I expect the next phase the Church will enter is something more along the lines of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ when it comes to non-celibate gay members, gay couples, etc. Too late for me and my family to get much out of it, but I’ve made peace with that.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 2:57 PM
Jeff G.,

You are right, my one-sentance support for why I disagree with the Church’s position on SSA is inadequate and vague. I probably should have just said I disagreed with the Church’s position on same-sex attraction without offering my reasons, and moved on from there. Like I said, I didn’t want to get bogged down in for and against arguments which have already been promulgated ad nauseum all over the Internet.

For now, I’ll simply clarify the terms “natural” and “perfectly acceptable”. I believe same-sex attraction is “natural” and “acceptable” in the exact same way opposite-sex attraction is natural and acceptable. “Natural” meaning, among other things: 1.) good (not bad), 2.) legitimate (not illegitimate), and 3.) in accordance with or determined by nature.

There may be other inclinations that pass some of the definitions of natural above, but not others. Pedophilia perhaps? Those that don’t pass all of the definitions may not be acceptable. My sentance would read better if I deleted the word “therefore”: I believe same-sex attraction to be a natural and perfectly acceptable phenomenon. That way “acceptable” is not dependent on “natural.
RorySwensen Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 3:02 PM
Matt,

I agree with MikeInWeHo’s #5. My own comments would be plaigaristic, so I’ll simply quote Joan Chittister instead. She’s a prominent Benedictine nun, and in speaking of her own Catholic faith, she says:

[Begin quote]

The church is a human institution, and it is slow. It’s also a universal institution. It takes a long time for ideas to seep to the top, let alone to move the bottom. So you just realize that what is going on right now is simply the seeding of the question. It comes down to how many snowflakes does it take to break a branch? I don’t know, but I want to be there to do my part if I’m a snowflake.

[End quote]

She says much the same thing in this example, from one of her speeches:

[Begin quote]

In the mid-17th century, Spanish seafarers sailed up the west coast of the Americas to what is now known as the Baja peninsula. The cartographers of the time simply drew a straight line up from the Strait of California to the Strait of Juan de Fuca between Vancouver Island and Washington state. Consequently, the maps that were published in 1635 show very clearly that California was an island. For 50 years, then, the years of the most constant, most crucial explorations of the California coastline, those maps went unchanged because someone continued to work with partial information, assumed that data from the past had the inerrancy of tradition and then used authority to prove it. Finally, after years and years of new reports, a few cartographers, the heretics, the radicals and the rebels, I presume, began to issue a new version, and in 1721, the last mapmaker holdout finally attached California to the mainland. But ?¢Ç¨Äù and this is the real tragedy perhaps ?¢Ç¨Äù it took almost 100 years for the gap between experience and authority to close. It took almost 100 years for the new maps to be declared official despite the fact that the people who were there all the time knew differently from the very first day. Vision is the ability to realize that the truth is always larger than the partial present. The map you use to explore this new world will be the path by which the next world walks.

[End quote]

I think this applies to our church as well, it will just take time.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 3:19 PM
Tom,

I tried to elaborate a little more on “natural” and “acceptable” in #6. I don’t believe one follows the other, though my original post was worded that way.

You said: The Priesthood ban, if it was against the will of God, which I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know for sure but I won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t dispute, isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t a case of getting the Plan of Salvation wrong, at least not on the same scale; it would be more a case of getting smaller scale details of the pre-existence wrong and misapplying Old Testament notions of priesthood exclusivity.

I’m not sure I agree, but I can see why some people believe more is at stake if the Church’s position on SSA turns out to be wrong. I’m wondering, does this fact make you more determined on this issue, since being wrong causes the whole house of cards to fall down? I’m sure people felt that way about the end of Polygamy, and later the Priesthood Ban: that reversal of the policy was too big of a hurdle to overcome, that it would be the last straw that proved the Church was a man-made institution. Today we wave off those previous hurdles with a brush of the hand. I can’t help but think we’ll do the same for the same-sex attraction hurdle tomorrow.

For what its worth, I’m not sure the Plan of Salvation needs to change much to accomodate same-sex couples. Like you see the Priesthood ban, I see this as a “small scale” misapplying of religious notions of sexual-orientation exclusivity. Why can’t we correct the Plan of Salvation to include same-sex couples (and adopted children)? Sure, we’d have to correct (or re-interpret) some scripture and some statements said by previous prophets, but we’ve done that many times before.
Preston Bissell Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 3:20 PM
Matt asks:

What does one do when personal beliefs contradict
Church doctrine, policy, or revelation? Ignore personal revelation and put your faith in the leaders of the Church? Quietly abstain with regards to the issue in question, keep your opinion to yourself, and openly support the Church in all other endeavors? Grouse to friends and family members and occasionally pop off in Elder Quorum? Write an editorial for the Salt Lake Tribune?

I respond:

I guess it all depends upon how important this issue is to you. There is no “one-size-fits-all” answer, even though there are apparently a lot of people who think in such absolute terms.
All I can tell you is this: Although I am heterosexual, I found the position taken by the LDS church to be so contrary to what I believed, and its political actions to sway public policy to support that position so reprehensible, that I resigned my membership.
I had many questions in my mind concerning many things in Mormon history/doctrine, but this particular issue was of sufficient importance to me that I could no longer affiliate, even peripherally, with an institution that holds these views. It affirmed an idea that had gradually been forming in my mind that the leaders were definitely NOT “inspired”, and that they do NOT “speak for God.”
Others may differ, or find a way to accomodate their beliefs. I couldn’t. It was purely a personal decision on my part, but one with which I am comfortable.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 3:42 PM
Rory:

Great quotes!

Let me add one of my own, from the great Levi Peterson:

{begin quote}

Many Mormons see little value in the process of civilization. Some of them tend to regard the Church as a culture which gives to but does not take from its sister cultures in the world, particularly in such essential matters as theological insight and moral understanding. Such things, in their view, come strictly through revelation, and it is the role of the Church to dispense them to the world through missionary work. It is inconceivable that an increased understanding of perfection might come to the Church from the wisdom which slowly accumulates through the civilized development of the human conscience in many cultures.

Certain other Mormons are even more militantly conscious of their disesteem for civilization, which they express by rejecting the world at large as the symbolic Babylon from which the Church, as God’s specially anointed society, is to keep itself unspotted. This view tends to take on a doomsday color, for the changes occurring in non-Mormon cultures are often seen as totally corrupt and retrogressive, tainted by sin and worthy of destruction. Everywhere are wars and rumors of wars without end and perversities and whoredoms beyond calculation. Armageddon looms on the horizon, and the fearful settle into the fortress of their righteousness to await the imminent end of the world – something like Jonah, who supposed there was nothing in the city of Nineveh worthy of salvation.

This cynical view of civilization is unfortunate. The Church is not a detached and isolated island; it has a symbiotic, interdependent relationship with numerous other cultures, with whose people its members commingle on a daily basis. Civilization is a social process which flourishes most dramatically precisely when such interaction takes place. A new insight, a new value, a new tool passes from person to person, crossing boundaries and domesticating itself in various cultures, stimulating among its recipients further inventions and discoveries.

Given the fact of proximity and interaction, the Church has inevitably influenced its sister cultures, not merely by proselyting converts from among them but also by the example it gives of Christian living. But one does no dishonor to the divine mission of the Church by admitting that, in its turn, the Church is highly influenced by the world, sometimes even in matters relating to Christian living. Evidence for this assertion may be seen in events preceding the revelation of 1978 which extended the priesthood to Mormon men of all races. That revelation was an immense relief to numerous Mormons, whose united concern and questioning about the inequality of the former policy had moved the prophet to seek a revelation on the matter. But why should Mormons of the 1970s have been so concerned when Mormons of the 1920s were not? The reason is that they had been influenced by the growing racial equality in other cultures.

Seeing other Americans, white as well as non-white, endorsing racial equality, Mormons gradually became sensitive to its value and became more and more uncomfortable with the former priesthood doctrine. This was civilization at work. The Church, being a conservative society, may change more slowly than some other particular culture and in a differing order and proportion, but it nonetheless changes in rough correspondence to the large, collective changes affecting the totality of the civilized world. [empahsis added]

{end quote}

Many of the arguments I hear against same-sex marriage from Mormons follows the logic Levi articulates above, that theological insight or moral understanding can only come via our prophets; it cannot come from “the world”. In fact, moral understanding from “the world” is the opposite, its IMMORAL, further proof of the correctness of the Church’s position. Remarks made by countless leaders during the Polygamy days reflect this fact, same as remarks during the Priesthood Ban days. In each case, the Church finally caught up with the slow, creeping “civilized development of the human conscience” of the rest of the world.

Some day, this creeping human conscience will catch up in the hearts of so many Mormons that the Prophet will inquire of God. Then, when the members are ready to accept homosexuals in the Church, some future Prophet will not surprisingly find that God is ready to accept them too.
Preston Bissell Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 5:18 PM
Matt says:

Some day, this creeping human conscience will catch up in the hearts of so many Mormons that the Prophet will inquire of God. Then, when the members are ready to accept homosexuals in the Church, some future Prophet will not surprisingly find that God is ready to accept them too.

I ask:
I hope I misunderstand you, or that you wrote hastily. Are you saying that God is NOT “ready to accept” homosexuals right now? Or, are you saying that the “creeping human conscience” has simply not registered with Mormons yet?
ISTM that there is a big difference about whom God accepts, and whom the Mormon church accepts.
(BTW, I fully accept the idea that any church, including the LDS church, has the right to accept or reject anybody for any reason. The question that remains is; do churches speak for God when they reject people on the basis of arbitrary “rules”?)
Matt Thurston Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 6:42 PM
I didn’t write hastily, I was being ironic. Yes, I believe God is ready to accept homosexuals, always has been. I’m saying he’s waiting for us to figure it out.
Tom Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 8:24 PM
D. Fletcher: IF God revealed tomorrow that homosexual relationships can be exalted, and the adopted children (in their families) could be sealed to them for eternity, what other aspects of the Plan of Salvation would this, throw off-kilter? Which prophets would come under intense scrutiny for being so off-base?

It depends on what is meant by exhaltation. The way I understand it, exhaltation entails, not only being sealed to a spouse and children, but also eternal increase in posterity, which is something that can only be done by a man/woman partnership.

I suppose you’re right that the prophets being wrong on that point–that exhaltation entails begetting spirit children–wouldn’t mean that every single thing that’s unique to the Mormon view of the Plan of Salvation is false. And, to be honest, that idea isn’t something that’s pushed in official Church settings a whole lot these days. So I may be overstating it a bit. But it’s still clear to me that the proscription against homosexual acts is in a different class from the priesthood ban in that the former makes sense and is defensible within the framework of the Plan of Salvation, which was revealed and taught long before homosexuality was on the public radar screen. In contrast, the Priesthood ban arose in an environment of racism and so, if it was against the will of God, it’s easier to see it as a reactionary mistake founded in racist sentiment. If the procreative model of exhaltation is wrong, it wouldn’t be a case of excluding homosexuals based on anti-gay bigotry; it would just be a case of being plain wrong. If the Church was wrong in either case, it’s a blow to the faith, but being wrong on homosexuality is less understandable to me if the prophets are prophets.

Matt: I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wondering, does this fact make you more determined on this issue, since being wrong causes the whole house of cards to fall down?

Actually, I wouldn’t say that I’m very determined on this issue. Being wrong would be a blow to anyone’s faith, but it’s not like I’m desperately holding on the the proscription on homosexual acts because if that falls everything falls. The reason I support the Church’s position on homosexuality is that it makes sense based on my understanding of the Plan of Salvation, which I believe to be true. If I didn’t believe that the Church was teaching the true Plan of Salvation I would find it hard to stick around.

Mikeinweho: ?¢Ç¨?ìSmaller scale details?¢Ç¨¬ù ?? So the priesthood ban was really no big deal? It excluded a heckuva lot larger percentage of humanity from the temple than the gay issue does today.

No. I’m just saying that if the Church is/was wrong in the eyes of God on both issues, being wrong on homosexuality cuts deeper than being wrong on the priesthood ban. Put another way, in my view, being wrong on homosexuality would undermine the claims of the Church to divine sanction and prophetic authority to a greater extent than being wrong on the Priesthood ban. I’m not suggesting that the priesthood ban wasn’t/isn’t a big deal.
Preston Bissell Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 8:49 PM
Tom says:

No. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m just saying that if the Church is/was wrong in the eyes of God on both issues, being wrong on homosexuality cuts deeper than being wrong on the priesthood ban. Put another way, in my view, being wrong on homosexuality would undermine the claims of the Church to divine sanction and prophetic authority to a greater extent than being wrong on the Priesthood ban. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not suggesting that the priesthood ban wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t/isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t a big deal.

I reply:

I agree. That’s why I resigned. I could no longer see any basis for claims to “divine sanction and prophetic authority.” I was able to live with the “priesthood ban”, although I didn’t agree with it, and could find no scriptural basis for it. The attitudes toward homosexuality simply made no sense to me. But, YMMV.
Tom Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 9:08 PM
YMMV, indeed!

(This is my way of saying: what does YMMV mean?)
Matt Thurston Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 9:13 PM
Thanks for answering, Tom. I’m just curious, how important are heterosexual relationships to your notion of the Plan of Salvation. I have to be honest, when I think of God’s plan, I just don’t think about male-female relationships all that much… I think about the human family. If a caveat were made for same-sex relationships, would the whole Plan of Salvation break down for you?

Preston, I understand your reasons for resignation. I’m curious… I’ve always felt that maximum spiritual growth required two components: an individual component and a community component. I’ve always felt we couldn’t maximize our spiritual growth by only being a “Buddha on the mountain,” that a group/community component was also necessary, that we learned something vital by serving each other, something that couldn’t be learned by individual study/worship/meditation. Since you’ve left the Church, have you tried to find another community? (Not an online community, but a physical community.) And do you agree with my theory? Just curious.
D. Fletcher Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 9:20 PM
Tom, I think you’ve reduced the Plan of Salvation to gender-based procreative activities in the afterlife, of which we really know nothing. If spirit children can be born to parents in the afterlife, it’s just as likely that they will spring from their foreheads (like Athena from Zeus) as come the way they do in this life.

But the Plan of Salvation provides for adoption. Those couples incapable of reproducing in this life can adopt children and be sealed to them.

This particular Mormon doctrine (found in no other religion) gives some doctrinal foundation in our Church (and no other) to the possibility of two people of the same gender fostering an eternal family. Two people of the same gender who adopt children who then marry and have children normally will start an eternal increase which will be no smaller or less significant than the opposite gender couple who have children naturally.

I honestly don’t see how the inclusion of same gender couples into the Plan of Salvation will alter anything.
D. Fletcher Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 9:33 PM
My last comment is really wrong. The inclusion of same gender couples into the Plan of Salvation will be of enormous benefit to them, since it will provide a model of morality and righteousness for these couples and their children. Those who choose it (like their heterosexual counterparts in the LDS Church) will find blessings that come from the most intimate kind of communion with God, the blessings they are now denied because of the preference for same-gender coupling to which they were consigned before they they were old enough to walk or talk.
Stephen Carter Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Allow me to hijack the conversation (even though I’m responding directly to the original post).

Matt,

I’d be interested to see you consider your idea through the “prophetic” statements or attitudes that don’t fit within the range of values you seem to espouse (humanist, as far as I can tell).

For example, as many Mormon women could tell you, women have considerably less power in the church now than they did 100 and more years ago. They used to have their own rites and blessings. The Relief Society used to be an independent auxiliary of the Church.

There probably were some people (likely male) back then who said, “Those sisters are getting too big for their corsetts. One of these days they’re going to be put in their God-ordained place. The priesthood will be moved completely into its proper (male) sphere and the Relief Society will come under the benevolent control of the bretheren.”

And they were right. (I’m not espousing any of the values in the previous paragraph.)

How do you respond to those “heretic/prophets”? Are you willing to put them in the same group with McMurrin and Bennion?
afn Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 1:44 AM
Quick question (also off the original question, sorry*(see below))

Were the bretheren ever as fully invested in denying blacks the priesthood as they currently are in denying SSA legitimacy?

I see little clips (sometimes larger) from Petersen, McConkie, earlier bretheren about how “negroes” are “cursed” etc. But what I don’t see is the priesthood ban equivalent of the Oaks and Wickman discussion.

I ask this because if the church ever did accept SSA they would be setting themselves up for major reversal of frequently and clearly expressed policy. Was the priesthood ban just as clearly and emphatically defended as the SSA issue?

———————————————

My two cents: the church will never change its position on SSA. I believe it is too invested. (Yeah, but what about polygamy and the priesthood ban?) . . . Well, they are going to draw the line somewhere. (Where is the “women should be able to openly practice the priesthood” debate gone? Wasn’t that going to be the next priesthood ban to fall? Is it on the back-burners until we get the SSA thing figured out?)

Also, isn’t saying, “the practice of homosexuality is a sin,” different from saying, “blacks are not authorized to hold the priesthood.” It seems to me that the path from unauthorized to authorized (or cursed to not cursed) is much shorter than the path from sin to not sin. (This is especially so considering the precedents that extend the gospel to different people at different times, w/ differing levels of priesthood dispensation.)

Even if you don’t respond to these (not particularly original/pithy) arguments, please to respond to my original question.

* It is funny how just mentioning the gay marriage issue has this affect on boards. Especially when it wasn’t the original question. (To answer the original question: I just go along with the church. Sooner or later, they figure it out. In the meantime I haven’t trespassed what I consider sacred promises to sustain the bretheren (my understanding of “sustain,”). They eventually figure stuff out. (e.g. missionary discussions use to be word for word . . . now, several years after my service, they figure it out!)
Matt Thurston Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 10:23 AM
afn (#20),

Good questions.

You said: “They eventually figure stuff out. (e.g. missionary discussions use to be word for word . . . now, several years after my service, they figure it out!)”

My question back to you is this: How do you think they “figure stuff out”. Don’t you think it is at least in some part due to feedback (dissent) from the members? I’m sure there were complaints re word-for-word missionary discussions that in part lead to the re-examination of the discussion process. That is dissent. The temple ceremony was changed in the early 90s (?) in part because of complaints from the rank and file. This is dissent. The examples are legion. I’m not sure the rhetoric from the pulpit to “follow the Brethren” means sitting on our hands and waiting for them “to figure it out”.

You asked: Were the bretheren ever as fully invested in denying blacks the priesthood as they currently are in denying SSA legitimacy?

Someone else will have to tackle this question. My quick answer/guess is “yes”. You could fill books with quotes by general authorities since B.Y. on the subject. And didn’t the Church take a public position during the 60s on a civil rights measure, something involving Benson who claimed the measure was not to help Blacks, but would help the Communists?

You said: It seems to me that the path from unauthorized to authorized (or cursed to not cursed) is much shorter than the path from sin to not sin.

Good point. It certainly is an uphill battle. However, I’d argue that the Church going from monogamy to polygamy in the 1840s and 50s was a path from sin to not sin. In the context of the times, the idea that a man could sleep with multiple wives was definitely a sin. And the ramifications of the decision to adopt polygamy were much greater for the members then, than they would be if we were to sanction same-sex marriage. If the Church were to reverse their opinion on same-sex marriage today, I don’t think my life would change much. It would be a different story if they brought back polygamy.
Matt Thurston Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Stephen (#19):

Yes, the imaginary men you describe (those who sought to minimize the role/power of women in the Church) follow the same heretic/prophet trajectory. Their position was one of dissent/heresy at one time, and later their position became the status quo. From a humanist perspective, I’d argue that McMurrin/Bennion’s heresy moved the Church in a forward direction, while the heresy of the men who sought to minimize the role/power of women moved the Church in a backward direction. So I’d put them all in the same group if we’re simply describing the phenomenon (objective), but in different groups if we’re describing the “quality” of the heresy (subjective).

I’m not sure if I answered your question.

My bottom line question is this: What is the proper apparatus for dissent in a religion that so strongly emphasizes “follow the Brethren” or “sustain your leaders”? Whether the dissent is later vindicated (looks prophetic), or whether it moves the Church forward or backward is really beside the point. I imagine most heretics today are heretics tomorrow. But even the kookiest heretic has no real roadmap to register dissent.
Preston Bissell Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 1:35 PM
Matt asks:

Preston, I understand your reasons for resignation. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m curious?¢Ç¨¬¶ I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve always felt that maximum spiritual growth required two components: an individual component and a community component. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve always felt we couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t maximize our spiritual growth by only being a ?¢Ç¨?ìBuddha on the mountain,?¢Ç¨¬ù that a group/community component was also necessary, that we learned something vital by serving each other, something that couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be learned by individual study/worship/meditation. Since you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve left the Church, have you tried to find another community? (Not an online community, but a physical community.) And do you agree with my theory? Just curious.

I reply:

I’ve not tried to find another “physical community.” I’m simply not interested. I’ve had my fill of man-made organizations of *all* kinds. Perhaps I’m just misanthropic, but I don’t care to attend any meetings or adhere to any schedule of any kind. (Being retired, I have that luxury.)
I don’t particularly agree with your theory. Being agnostic, I don’t see the need for a community. I am able to participate in meaningful community service without the need for an organization to which I belong. Although, I volunteer at a community organization that is run by other people, including my wife. I just don’t need somebody telling me what to do and where to do it.
That said, I understand why *some* people need some sort of organization. I’m just not one of them.
DKL Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 9:02 PM
The way I see it, either (a) going to the temple and holding the priesthood isn’t terribly important in the scheme of things, (b) the church is guilty of apostasy through a failure to address the salvation-needs of the world, or (c) it’s part of God’s plan. Anyone have a 4th alternative?
Preston Bissell Says:
September 1st, 2006 at 9:17 PM
DKL September 1, 2006 | 9:02 pm
The way I see it, either (a) going to the temple and holding the priesthood isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t terribly important in the scheme of things, (b) the church is guilty of apostasy through a failure to address the salvation-needs of the world, or (c) it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s part of God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s plan. Anyone have a 4th alternative?

I Respond:

I see lots of alternatives, but for starters, perhaps there is no “scheme of things.” That’s the one I personally favor.
Stunned Says:
September 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 PM
When I was learning about the gospel, it was made clear that this was a “plan of happiness” that would provide for ultimate joy with those we loved on earth. Why is it that this plan is only efficacious for straight people?
Lee Beardall Says:
September 3rd, 2006 at 4:48 PM
Matt, for starters, I agree with you regarding same-sex attraction and same-sex marriage. I pray for the day when these can be accommodated within Mormon theology and practice. And, like you, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think this would particularly upset the Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s plan of salvation theology. At the same time, I found the Oaks-Wickman interview quite troubling, as well as insulting to a whole constituency within the LDS community. I hope that this does not signal the start of a greater ?¢Ç¨?ìretrenchment?¢Ç¨¬ù on the part of the Church. I find it quite admirable that you, while disagreeing, are able to maintain respect for Elders Oaks and Wickman, as well as the late Elder Peterson. I have some difficulty in this regard, but I try. But to the specific question:

First some general thoughts: (1) In a top-down corporate-style organization, such as the LDS Church, opportunities to dissent, and positive results, are at best limited, and I certainly have no ?¢Ç¨?ìsuccess stories?¢Ç¨¬ù to tell (but hey you-gotta-have-some-fun); (2) in dissenting, a good sense of tact and timing (i.e., good ?¢Ç¨?ìstreet smarts?¢Ç¨¬ù) is essential; and (3) dissent, especially in official Church gatherings, should be done in small increments, ?¢Ç¨?ìline upon line; here a little and there a little,?¢Ç¨¬ù sowing seeds, planting ideas.

Some possible vehicles for dissent: (1) Grousing to friends and family (as you suggested), as I recently did in an email to my conservative brother where I suggested, among other things, that the Proclamation on the Family should be given a proper burial, but there I have the luxury of ranging far and wide; (2) speaking-up in Priesthood and Sunday School classes, where in the past I have sometimes been labeled, endearingly in most cases, as ?¢Ç¨?ìthe intellectual?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìthe liberal;?¢Ç¨¬ù or (3) slipping some ?¢Ç¨?ìradical?¢Ç¨¬ù ideas into an otherwise garden-variety Sacrament Meeting talk. For example, once when assigned to give a talk at the University Ward in Berkeley, I chose the topic of civic involvement, and quoted liberally from B. H. Roberts, Hugh B. Brown, and even J. Golden Kimball, all good Democrats, hoping to raise a little political consciousness. My continuing wish, from a long wish list, is that the Church would undertake a campaign, like the one in the late nineteenth century, to achieve a better political balance in the body politic (pun possibly intended) of the Church (e.g., ?¢Ç¨?ìToday, brothers and sisters, we are going to give out political party assignments.?¢Ç¨¬ù)

I have never dissented publicly or challenged Church leaders individually or collectively as a certain op-ed writer did recently. I greatly admire and support those who do, but have seen how mean the Church, and/or some of its affiliated businesses and schools, can be when that happens.
Stephen Carter Says:
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:04 PM
Matt,

So let’s get to your actual question. How does one go about dissenting well?

I think effective dissenters must have a way ot instilling real tension into the social body.

Martin Luther King Jr. wrote:

“I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.”

This is quite hard to do, mostly because we all like comfort too much. The dissenter has to become, like Jesus, the person who stretches him or herself across the divide between what is just, and what is acceptable. Think of MLK Jr, or Arthur Miller’s adaptatoin of Ibsen’s play “Enemy of the People.” The main character, in order to instill change, had to go through great personal sacrifice. He even had to make his family sacrifice. Which, I think, is one of the great ethical dilemmas of instigating change: how much do you allow the results your convictions to affect people who are in your care and don’t have the power or the faculties to consent in an informed way? Do you add suffering upon your children in hopes that you will relieve future suffering? That’s a hard one.

One good example of this, I think, is Lavina Fielding Anderson’s essay on how she decided to write her famous article on ecclesiastical abuse, and refusing to back down in the face of excommunication. I think I remember reading her essay in Dialogue, but I could be wrong. She tells about how she wanted to dissent on a number of different issues (the ERA, the Vietnam War, etc) but never felt “called” to do so, even though she felt passionately about those issues. It wasn’t until the ecclesiatical abuse issue came up that she felt like God was actually calling her to deal with it.

And she went through a lot of suffering.

I think real dissenters have to do that. They have to be willing to let an idea be more important than themselves. Interestingly, the Church very much condones this practice. The spiritual person is supposed to be someone who subliminates their own desires for the needs of others, and for the needs of the Church.

In a way, I think you do need to be “called” to really dissent well. You need to be cleansed of ego. You have to be more interested in your cause than in how many article are published about you, or how you will be remembered by the history books. You have to be willing to be entirely misunderstood by rational people.

MLK Jr, wrote:

“Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will”

I, personally, have not been called to dissent.

So, maybe an interesting question (and maybe it’s what you intended to ask, and I just misunderstood) is “how does one dissent from one’s armchair?”
Matt Thurston Says:
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:24 PM
By the way, someone from tne news media has finally reported on the Oaks/Wickman interview. See Peggy Fletcher Stack’s article here:

http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_4268212

Lee and Stephen, thanks for taking the time to answer my question. You both make some excellent points. I hope to find a little time tonight to respond.
Matt Thurston Says:
September 4th, 2006 at 3:43 PM
Stephen,

In my original draft of this Blog Post I had two additional paragraphs that discussed this idea of being “called” to dissent. I used the Lavina Fielding Anderson Dialogue article you reference as an example. In the SL06316, Gays in the Mormon Universe session at the recent SLC Symposium, Jeffrey Nielsen uses similar language to describe the reasons he decided to write his Tribune letter. I cut the paragraphs because the post was too long as it was.

Anderson and Nielsen’s decision to put their membership and/or employment on the line is reminiscent of Fowler’s Stage 6 Faith. I’m not suggesting Anderson and/or Nielsen possess Stage 6 Faith — maybe they do, maybe they don’t — but their actions, at least in this regard, sound like Fowler’s description of Stage 6 Faith:

“Heedless of the threats to self, to primary groups, and to the institutional arrangements of the present order that are involved, Stage 6 becomes a disciplined, activist incarnation — making real and tangible — of the imperatives of absolute love and justice of which Stage 5 has partial apprehensions… In their devotion to universalizing compassion they may offend our parochial perceptions of justice. In thier penetration through the obsession with survival, security, and significance they threaten our measured standards of righteousness and goodness and prudence. Their enlarged visions of universal community disclose the partialness of our tribes and pseudo-species… It is little wonder that persons best described by Stage 6 so frequently become martyrs for the visions they incarnate.”

Stage 5 Faith, on the other hand:

“Stage 5 remains paradoxical or divided, however, because the self is caught between these universalizing apprehensions and the need to preserve its own being and well-being. Or because it is deeply invested in maintaining the ambigous order of a socioeconomic system, the alternatives to which seem more unjust or destructive than it is… But Stage 5 acts out of conflicting loyalties. Its readiness to spend and be spent finds limits in its loyalty to the present order, to its institutions, groups and compromise procedures. Stage 5’s perceptions of justice outreach its readiness to sacrifice the self and to risk the partial justice of the present order for the sake of a more inclusive justice and the realization of love.”

When you talk about “liking comfort too much” or worry about “the results [of] your convictions [and the] affect [on] people who are in your care”, you are describing Stage 5 apprehensions. That isn’t a value judgment of course, most of us feel that way. Since I imagine most of us don’t feel “called” to put it all on the line, my post was a call for effective ways we can “dissent from [our] armchairs”, as you put so well. Lee came the closest to offering any real advice. I’ve done more than my share of grousing, as my family would attest. I’ve spoken up on occaision in SS or PH, but I’m not very good at thinking on my feet so I usually hold back. (It would be easier if they let me teach a PH lesson!) I’ve slipped my share or “radical” ideas into sacrament meeting talks. For example, 2-3 years ago I gave a talk about community and respect for beliefs and questioned what I thought were judgmental and condescending remarks made by some ward members in SS and over the pulpit in Sac Mtg with regards to the movie The Passion of the Christ, and the people who made, watched, or believed it the values the film espoused.

But these few attempts at dissent have been weak and woefully inadequate. I feel impatient with the state of the Church. I have an admittedly naive dream of the “ultimate environment” it could be and want to be around to see that happen. I don’t feel like I’m contributing much of anything at all at Church. But I don’t feel like I can contribute much of anything with the tools, ideas, and language at our disposal. Like you, I don’t feel “called” like an MLK, but I’m anxious to follow an MLK. Will Mormonism have an MLK? Have we ever had one?

By the way, Fowler appears to agree with the idea of being “called”:

“It is my conviction that persons who come to embody [Stage 6 Faiith] are drawn into those patterns of commitment and leadership by the providence of God and the exigencies of history. It is as though they are selected by the great Blacksmith of history, heated in the fires of turmoil and trouble and then hammered into usable shape on the hard anvil of conflict and struggle.”
Stephen Carter Says:
September 4th, 2006 at 7:32 PM
Matt Asked:

“Will Mormonism have an MLK? Have we ever had one?”

We definitely have. Some of them we love, some of them we hate. Think Brigham Young inspiring people to move into the wilderness. Think Ezra Taft Benson promoting the John Birch Society. Think of Bruce R. McConkie coming down on heresies. Think Lowell Bennion luring people into Christian service.

Think Lavina Fielding Anderson and the Utah Alliance. Think Tapestry of Polygamy. Think of the clarion calls issued by the September 6. Think of the people who run Affirmation. Think of what Carol Lynn Pearson is trying to do with gay acceptance in the Church.

There are all kinds of MLKs running around. The problem is, they’re all “nuts” in a stage 6 sort of way. People in all the previous stages (including me) can’t see what’s to be had from sacrificing for this kind of obsession. I wonder, if we follow these people, are we effectively going back to stage 2 again, depending on the structures of others to guide our lives?

i remember what it was like to have a calling. To love something transcendent. The problem was, that transcendent thing turned out to be full of holes. It had been made by someone else, therefore, it wasn’t for me.

People in that stage six have tailor made something that resonates with them. That’s why they can love it so wholeheartedly. But, unless that idea has the luck of being able to resonate with many other people, it may never progress beyond a kooky obsession by the rest of the world’s standards.
Lee Beardall Says:
September 5th, 2006 at 1:06 PM
Stephen Carter wrote: ?¢Ç¨?ìThink of the people who run Affirmation. Think of what Carol Lynn Pearson is trying to do with gay acceptance in the Church. . . There are all kinds of MLKs running around. . .?¢Ç¨¬ù

Along this line, I would add others who are working for gay acceptance in the Church including, among others, Bob Rees, Bill Bradshaw, Wayne Schow and Ron Schow, who have all written and spoken widely, and who regularly participate in Sunstone sessions. Bob Rees, for example, who once served as bishop of a singles ward in Los Angeles, and who continues to counsel LDS gays and lesbians, commented at a Sunstone session last year (SL05-336) that his experiences had lead to this field ?¢Ç¨?ìin which I was called or called myself.?¢Ç¨¬ù
Mike Kessler Says:
September 6th, 2006 at 11:27 AM
Tom (comment #15): Since no one ever answered, I googled “YMMV” — apparently it’s “your mileage may vary.” New one to me.

afn (comment #20): You say: “My two cents: the church will never change its position on SSA. I believe it is too invested.” I say: Never say never.

Elder Wickman, in the interview, says “Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin.” First, it sounds like he either doesn’t understand the concept of revelation or doesn’t believe it exists. Either way, saying anything “is and always will remain” unchanging before the Lord calls into question the belief in and nature of prophecy, of newly revealed wisdom and doctrine.

Wikipedia on abominable sins quotes Elisabeth Anne Kellogg:
Of the various activities labeled as to’ba [Hebrew for "abomination"] in the Old Testament the most common is idolatry in Leviticus 7:25-26; Deuteronomy 13:14; 17:4; 27:15; 1 Kings 14:24; 21:26; Jeremiah 44:4 and numerous other verses. Among other cultic acts that are to’ba are sacrificing blemished animals (Deuteronomy 17:1), dedicating children to Molech, using mediums and magic (Deuteronomy 18:9-14), and using a prostitute’s wages to make an offering at the temple (Deuteronomy 23:18). Also to’ba are the sacrifices of the wicked (Proverbs 15:8; 21:27) and the prayers of the lawless (Proverbs 28:9) and allowing the uncircumcised to enter the sanctuary (Ezekiel 44:6-7; see also Acts 21:28). A broad range of sexual and non-sexual activities are labeled as to’ba, from incest, bestiality and adultery to practicing polygamy with sisters (but not polygamy in general), marrying a divorced woman (Deuteronomy 24:4) and having sex during a woman’s menstrual period (Leviticus 18:6-30; Leviticus 20:1-27). Other to’ba acts include cursing your father or mother (Leviticus 18:6-30; Leviticus 20:1-27) and using dishonest weights and measures (Deuteronomy 25:13-16; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10,23). The shedding of blood, lying and stealing are labeled to’ba (Proverbs 6:16-19; Jeremiah 7:9-10; Ezekiel 18:10-13; 22:6-12). Even King David’s census was ta’ab (1 Ch 21:6).

While some will point out that homosexuality and cross-dressing are in the same category as incest and bestiality, it should be noted that so are divorced people who remarry, those who have sex during menstruation and children who fight with their parents. In fact it seems that any uncleanness, any violation of Jewish Law, can be considered to’ba…
RorySwensen Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 9:48 AM
Brilliant writing, Stephen, I’m glad this turned out so well for you and your son. 20 minutes of solidarity for both of you to cherish for a lifetime. Could it have been any better?
jana Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Thanks for sharing this lovely story! So glad it went well and you’ll both have lovely memories of it!

I have fond memories of both my kids’ baptisms. I especially liked that so many family members and well-wishers gathered just to celebrate them (we not only baptized the kids, but sort of ‘roasted’ them, too, by telling lots of family stories and enjoying the gathering of well-wishers). They felt loved, even as awkward and scary as the actual baptism moment was.
Matt Thurston Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 4:19 PM
I echo Rory’s and Jana’s compliments on this fine piece of writing.

A couple of questions…

Besides embarrassment due to the baptismal clothing, how did McKye feel about the baptism itself? Did he care, or was he doing it because everyone else did it? Was he excited about it? Did he understand what it meant according to the Church? What did you tell him it meant or represented? Did you talk at all about “sin”, and its effects on his heavenly balance sheet, now that he’s accountable? What about the Holy Ghost?

Just curious.
Rob Says:
September 7th, 2006 at 5:09 PM
The LDS Church comes out against homosexuality because it is considered “Unnatural.” And yet the currernt LDS position is that “the natural man if an enemy to God.” (This based on the Calvinistic/Pauline doctrine taught in “The Book of Mormon.”

So if the Natural Man is God’s enemy, and the homosexual man is an Unnatural Man, then one could reason that the Unnatural (Homosexual) Man is a friend of God.

Of course, this entire premise can be turned on its head by Brigham Young’s teaching that “the Natural Man is a friend of God.” Young clearly taught this concept, going so far as to teach that had “The Book of Mormon” been written in light of later revelations, the entire “Natural Man is an enemy” doctrine laid out in that volume, would have been reversed.

So according to Brigham Young, the Natural Man is a friend of God. In light of the concept of progressive, continual revelation, Young’s teaching is more authoritative than the teachings of “The Book of Mormon.”

Therefore is homosexuality is natural, then the homosexual is by nature a friend of God.

To fruther complicate the supposedly straight forwardness of the currernt LDS position on homosexuality, one can reference the teachings of Joseph Smith himself on the nature of human sexuality and sexual unions.

When he proposed polygamous marriage to Nancy Rigdon, the young woman was morally horrifided and revolted. Joseph responded by teaching Nancy that “Happiniess is the object of our creation….God is more liberal in his views than we imagine….what is wrong in one instance, may be and often is right in another.”

These concepts were taught with regard to human sexuality. These statements by Mormonism’s foundder are virtually unknown by the rank and file LDS Church member, and they are ignored by LDS apologists.

I am not LDS, but a Reform Mormon, and therefore I accept that homosexuality is completely natural, that the natural man is a friend of God, and that happiness and companionship–not mere procreation–are the purpose of marriage.

As for the current LDS doctrine that spirits are begotten by a sexual uniion of a Heavenly Father and Mother, this doctrine was never even taught by Joseph; it was presented–via speculation–by Orson Pratt as a justoification for the LDS Church’s acceptance of polygamy. The book “LINE UPON LINE” published by Signature Books, contains an excellent essay on how this supposedly essential Mormon doctrine was never taught by Mormonism’s founder at all–but was introduced after his death.
Lisa Tensmeyer Hansen Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 3:10 PM
This piece seems as much about the grittiness of parenting mid family expectations as it is about baptism. Sounds like McKye knew he was the center of the event. which strikes me as just where he ought to be. You’ve got my applause Stephen.
Anne Arnold Says:
September 8th, 2006 at 6:21 PM
What fabulous words! Through all your concerns, which you found a way to step away from, you managed to just see your son . That seems like pure gospel. Thank you for letting me step into your world.
Stephen Carter Says:
September 11th, 2006 at 8:37 AM
Thanks for asking, Matt.

Really, I don’t think McKye thought much about his baptism at all. He hasn’t really latched onto any grand myths the way my youngest has. McKye is the scientific type. And I don’t think religion appeals to that part of him. The thing he likes about religion is the stories (at least, the way we tell them at night when we’re all tired and silly). My youngest is an entirely different sack of Mexican jumping beans. He falls for any mythology that comes his way. He doesn’t really differentiate between dragons and Deuteronomy yet. It’s all this wonderful playground where he can be an expert and (yes indeedy) exercise moral control over the real world, which is much bigger than he is.

I didn’t really get into the sin stuff or the Jesus stuff. That’s just not the type of story that motivates McKye. His scientific approach to life makes it much more beneficial to show him the outcomes of his actions and ask what would go differently if he took a different course of action. He won’t do something because Jesus would do it. He’ll do something because it works.

So the only thing I really talked with him about was that he was getting initiated into the world of adults where he had to take more responsibility for his actions. And also that he was entering a kind of creative pool, where people thought about how to live well, and helped each other do so. My wife is much more willing to do the doctrinal thing. I think we make a good balance.
Matt Thurston Says:
September 11th, 2006 at 5:42 PM
Interesting insights into your two sons, Stephen. It makes me better realize that we all relate to rites of passage (like baptism) in our own unique ways. My kids are still pretty small, but I sometimes get hung up on trying to “translate” everything for them. This means this; that means that. Instead, I should just turn them loose and let them experience life in their own unique way. My role should be to help resolve concerns (as you were able to with McKye), or be an open-minded and encouraging sounding board. “Translating” an experience is one of the joys of life. My inclination to translate is ironic in that I’ve always been miffed by the Church’s attempts to translate meaning/spritiuality/etc for me. Crazy.

Thanks for your reply.
Dan Says:
September 12th, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Hate to always be sounding the same note (about a book that’s helped me in so many ways), but James Fowler’s Stages of Faith is wonderful in helping us understand our kids at this stage (his Stage Two) and the importance of stories and narratives (even far-fetched ones) in healthy faith development. Stephen’s reflection on the differences between his two sons and how far they go in buying into the mythologies and differentiating between the more and less literal worlds is wonderfully illustrated in the book.

Most of all, though, I’m jealous that Stephen and Matt and Rory get to be dads with kids still in this wonderful, delightful stage. I can’t wait to get to hang with grandkids as they have these adventures down the road (well, actually, I’m happy to WAIT a while longer–do you hear that, nineteen-year-old son? No need to rush into things!)
Sister Mary Lisa Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 9:22 AM
I can’t help but feel alarm. Was McKye REALLY given true freedom to choose here? I don’t think so. In fact, does he really really know inside what he chose? Again, I don’t think so. I feel bad I did the same thing to my daughter when she resisted baptism. I tried to guilt her into it: “But Grandpa is coming all the way from Utah to do it, and he bought you YOUR OWN set of scriptures!” and it wasn’t until I explained she was getting a whole party just for her, and that I’d serve whatever treat she chose, that she agreed that she’d do it. But she didn’t want to at all. It’s not hard to coerce an 8 year old to do what we want them to. Is it really right, especially when we as Mormons claim we baptize our children at age 8 vs. at birth, because we want them to be able to choose for themselves?
Simeon's Peep Stone Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 10:14 AM
Stephen,

This was great. Very telling. Bubbles up the jumpsuit are a fond memory. 4 years from now he’ll be able get dunked multiple times and he’ll be in a bubble wonderland.
RorySwensen Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 10:27 AM
Sister Mary Lisa,

There are certainly baptisms of 8 year olds that are done with little forethought or preparation, but in this case I see Stephen’s son having performance anxiety as opposed to existential questions – it’s more akin to the nerves prior to a dance recital or first soccer game.
annegb Says:
September 20th, 2006 at 10:33 AM
You handled it just right. I wish I’d been so wise when my kids were little. Wonderful story, it made me smile. Thanks for sharing.
Stephen Carter Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 9:24 AM
I think you have a great point, SML. Believe me, it did cross my mind that I was, in fact, hauling my son into the church against his will. It reminded me of those polygamy horror stories.

I would have stopped it all if I had the idea that my son had doubts or that this wasn’t a good thing for him. But he really was just nervous. That was all.

Still, your concern that we’re foisting these lifelong committments on our sons and daughters before they’re really ready to provide their informed consent is a valid one. I wonder sometimes if these kinds of rites of passage aren’t left over from a more tirbal era. When you lived in a tribe, there weren’t any competing cultures that would accept you. It wasn’t a matter of who was right and who was wrong, it just mattered what tribe you belonged to. So going through rites of passage was a perfectly acceptable way of advancing through the community.

But Mormonism is embedded in a much different setting. There are all kinds of choices now. People can find cultures that they’re comfortable in and go join them. However, Mormonism (and a lot of other religions) keeps on with the exclusivity thing, making us pretend like we’re in a tribe, when life is really much more complicated than that.

For my extended family, Mormonism is very much a tribe. Most all are members, so the Mormon ethos permeates pretty much everything we do. I’m trying to find a way to enjoy the culture, participate in it with my family, but not support the exclusivity notion. Whenever my kids try to make me support an exclusivist doctrine, i always covertly blow their question open hoping they’ll learn by osmosis to think about things, rather than just accepting them.
Anonymous Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 10:48 AM
Was a mission a good moratorium for you? Did it do its job getting you ready to encounter life as an authentic person? Or are you lame like me?

I think my mission was a good moratorium for me. So I guess that means that I’m not lame like you, I’m just lame in different ways.

Maybe we can account for the differences in experience by considering the differences in mission presidents. My MP was about the most hands-off man I have ever encountered in my life. I don’t think a single missionary would describe him as authoritarian. He personified Joseph Smith’s dictum about teaching correct principles. On the other hand, I know a man whose MP required them to account, every day, for the amount of time, measured in seconds, they slept in after 6:00a.m. I’m frankly surprised that every single missionary in that mission didn’t have a breakdown.
Nick Literski Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Erickson suggested that the psychosocial moratorium take place during adolescence, as a state immediately prior to taking on adult responsibilities. For most young Americans (including LDS) this would be filled by going off to college. I can see where a mission might also be considered in such a way.

At least where young men are concerned, however, I’m not so sure that modern LDS-ism allows for a psychosocial moratorium. The “ideal” (for which I’ve seen parents express their gratitude to deity for, in testimony meetings) is that the young LDS person goes to college at one of the three BYU campuses. Like it or not, there is a subtle message that going to any other school is somehow inferior. What do we find at BYU? Not your typical college lack of supervision, but rather an administrative structure which is highly paternallistic, and clearly regards the student body as something less than “adults.” For example, the administration hand-picks candidates for student body officers. What foundation can such a practice have, other than a substantial belief that the students, themselves, are too immature to select their own representation?

The mission is even more supervised and controlling. You are never supposed to be alone. Heck, my mission president was so freaked out at his orientation by stories of elders having bathroom liasons with young LDS girls, that he actually directed that we accompany our companions to the bathroom if we weren’t in our own apartment! (Yes, he calmed down later, and was a wonderful man.) Missionaries have a handbook of rules which they would never be expected to live in other circumstances. They have mission presidents of varying management styles. Then there are the LDS members—we had to start wearing missionary attire on preparation days, because a member called the mission president and complained about seeing “the missionaries” in t-shirts and knee-length shorts at the grocery store on preparation day. (”They didn’t look like missionaries!!!”)

Once finished with the scrutiny of missionary service, the LDS church (not to mention biology) strongly urges a young man to promptly marry and start raising a family. By then, “adult responsibilities” have taken over entirely. Besides, a wife is more controlling of a man’s behavior than any mission president could be.

The big question isn’t so much whether a young LDS has a psychosocial moratorium, or whether the mission serves this purpose, but rather what effect does the LACK of one have on personality development? Maybe Erickson is up in the night, since there are plenty of LDS super-achievers who trod this path.

In an LDS theological sense, this entire earthly existence is MEANT to be a psychosocial moratorium, carried on outside the presence of deity. One gets the occasional letter from home, but nothing immediately enforces compliance with the will of the authority figure. So why do so many LDS institutions reject that example??
Rick Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 12:12 PM
My mission was absolutely my moratorium. Not because it was fun or liberating, but because I had to strip away everything that I thought defined me (my clothes, my reading, my friendships, etc.) and turn myself into just one more elder in an army of clones. Having no real external identity for two years really gave me perspective on who I was internally. Not being able to pursue any of my own ambitions, I had two years to realize what they were. It was my transformation.

(I might also add that two years of no sexual relations certainly had some effect…………different discussion, though)

My dilemna now is that I have young children who will someday be mission age. I don’t support the idea of prosilytizing missions at all and really don’t want my kids to go. But then….what will be their moratorium?
paula Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 3:16 PM
Well, how about a Gap Year for your kids, Rick? (Like British kids do.) There are a lot of organized programs,and our youngest wants to look into doing that. Or something like Teach for America– which does have to be a little bit later. My oldest has spent the summer working at the NIH in Maryland, and I think it’s been a moratorium for him. He knew no one when he went, and had to find housing, etc, and make new connections totally, as well as working in a really challenging field, at age 20. It’s been a great summer for him.
Matt Thurston Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 4:42 PM
Cool term: psychosocial moratorium. And based on my own personal experience it’s a cool phenomenon.

My mission and undergrad experience at BYU certainly qualify for P.M., though they were subject to some of the caveats Nick and Stephen point out. A Mission President and the mission location are probably the two most important external ingredients affecting a mission’s P.M.ness. The Pres sets the tone of the mission and it filters alarmingly efficient throughout the mission. The location brings its own unique set of variables. For example, in Taiwan we never felt the presence of members looking over our shoulders, and as Americans in an American-friendly foreign country we largely felt like we could do anything we wanted. I also had a great President. All things considered, I felt a lot of autonomy to make my mission whatever I wanted it to be. As such, I do feel it helped me develop at least some degree of authenticity.

I also enjoyed a 4-month, uh, “vacation” in Taiwan as a civilian during one summer two years after my mission that consisted of me, a motorcycle, a backpack full of books, a countryside dotted by Buddhist temples, and an occaisional “english lesson” to finance my meals and gas for the motorcycle. Heaven.

I’d always wanted a family, but I waited until I was 30 to get married in large part because I wanted to experience the opportunities and flexibility that life with a wife and children could not afford. Though I was never entirely free of “the bonds and expectations of family and community,” in many respects I view my entire twenties as an extended P.M.
Mark Butler Says:
September 21st, 2006 at 11:02 PM
If it weren’t so potentially hazardous to one’s spiritual health, a year or so away from the Church works wonders in this regard – with respect to appreciating the blessings active participation provides in particular.Of course hell may also be considered to be a psychosocial moratorium of a more serious nature.
Jason King Says:
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:01 AM
“To see what you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re like without authority figures looking over your shoulder, or without the bonds and expectations of family and community.”

Under this definition, I’m not sure how most missions could qualify (I would say that mine did not); you’re with someone 24/7. Perhaps there is something to say for the mission because the old authority, namely your parents, are no longer there. But the reality of today’s mission is to have constant supervision, rules, and activies for the missionary for the their entire mission, perhaps more supervision than you had before your mission. Authority is an ever present reality; no freedom from authority means authentic actions becomes very difficult to do (even months after my mission, it felt wierd that I no longer had to call my zone leader or mission president. Being ‘alone’ was a very different feeling after two years of constant supervision and personal interviews with the president).

“Did it do its job getting you ready to encounter life as an authentic person?”

Serving a two year mission in Europe, I’d have to say my mission created a self for me, but it was anything but authentic. To be authentic I would say that the individual must have adequate understanding of viable options for living life in different and particular ways, and then when all these options are laid out for the individual to choose, she then decides to follow a particular path because it is ‘right’ or ‘true’ to her feelings of self.

Instead, the mission only allows a very narrow understanding of what life is, who we are as individuals in this life, and the meaning this life has for us under these assumptions (in fact, the mission rules forbid reading of any text outside of the approved materials). So, without a deeply varied system of exposure to different understandings and philosophies of life, where each of these values could be just as ‘true’ or correct, how can one ever come to realize their authentic self? Authenticity arises from the spectrum of varied and viable options of exestenial paths, and then the indivdual can freely choose to live any path they truly desire, the path that is authentic to them because it is true to them.

Exellent questions and post, Stephen.
Nick Literski Says:
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:08 AM
Excellent post, Jason.
Personally, and especially after reading Jason’s post, I don’t feel I had a true psychosocial moratorium until I was 39 years old! I was raised by a very controlling parent–so much so, that I vowed never to let anyone control me like that again. So what did I do? Well, I promptly handed that control over to an institution, instead! I allowed the LDS church and its authorities to fulfill that “dominant parent” role for me, making decisions for me and telling what I may or may not do. What’s more, I liked it! After all, if I had an ethical question on organ donation, for example, all I had to do was find out what the church’s position was! Then I reinforced the dominant role of the church in my life, by marrying and beginning to raise children—just like the church leaders told me to do.

Eighteen years later, I found myself a little more mature, and a little more educated. Chinks were appearing in the well-polished armor of the church. My marriage had become an abusive hell of constant criticism. Most of all, I found I could no longer suppress and lie about my innermost feelings and desires. As a result, I was divorced, had my name removed from the records of the church, and moved 2,000 miles at the beginning of this year. Arguably, I am *now* going through the things that Erickson said I should have done before “taking on adult responsibilities.” I was stripped down, both materially and spiritually, and had to begin rebuilding from scratch. I’ve learned a lot about who I really am, and so far, I’m liking the result!
Preston Bissell Says:
September 25th, 2006 at 3:39 PM
This might sound a little strange coming from a person who has left Mormonism behind, but the 30 months that I was a missionary *was* a “psychosocial moratorium.” I was fortunate enough to be assigned to a remote island in the South Pacific (Niue Island), with little supervision from a mission president (whom we saw for about 2 hours every 4-6 months), a remarkable lack of rules (we rode motorcycles on our rounds and went swimming regularly), and considerable responsibility for four young men. (We had eight branches or dependent Sunday Schools that we had to supervise.) The independence, responsibility, and geographic isolation from the rest of the world (we only got mail every four weeks) was a break from my life up to that point, and was a seminal experience for me. There are many things about my life as a Mormon which I now look back on with a certain amount of disdain, but my mission experience isn’t one of them.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
October 4th, 2006 at 8:38 PM
Wow! Reading this provocative Mormontorium question and all these subsequent posts, catapulted me back to early 1952, when I left my Phoenix home to attend BYU. The Korean War was at its height, and I had a military deferment. But then I got homesick and quit school after a year to return to AZ to marry my HS sweetheart. Then, I got into a motorcycle accident and had forgotten I was fair game now for the draft. Believing I was now 4F (medically unacceptable) I went down to the Phoenix draft board to make sure the marriage could take place without a hitch (I was 19) . There was a hitch: my draft papers were on top of the stack of the First Sargeant’s desk, ready to send out the next day!

My God! I thought, I don’t want to go to Korea! Maybe there’s something for me to learn instead? What would I want to learn in the Army if I had my wildest dream come true? Ha! I’d learn my father’s mother toungue! So, I asked the Sargeant, “Is there any way I could learn Russian in the Army?” (Knowing that was an impossibility.) The Sargeant looked at me and blinked. “This is amazing!”, he said. “Just today we received a letter from Washington, D.C. Headquarters for a quota of one for the month of April for the state of Arizona to the Army Language School for Russian! If you can qualify, you’re in.” I had taken a quarter of Russian at BYU. That qualified me. “Where do I sign?” That was Friday. I was on my way to Fort Ord, California the following Monday.

Thus began my Psychosocial .Mormontorium! It became the adventure of my life: trained as a Russian interrogator, sent to Berlin at the height of the Cold War, and assigned to clandestine stuff that I couldn’t talk about for 20 years after returning home. I had married while at the Presidio of Monterey, but couldn’t even tell my wife I couldn’t tell her. Nothing like permanently warping a guy. Had to live with that secret stuff while it did its number on my psyche. Talk about developing deep shadow material! that became a psychological time bomb. It exploded ten years later.

Back to when I returned home from overseas and returned to college on the G.I. Bill. I had bought a shack in Southern California in Capistrano Beach for me and by little family. My daughter had been born while I was gone. I didn’t want anything to do with the Church, but needed to tell the bishop so he wouldn’t have any illusions about my intent. “I’m searching for truth and don’t think its here. So, leave me alone,” I boasted. The bishop, also a young man, looked at me and said, “Well, the truth may not be here, but you don’t know it. Tell me, have you ever read the Bible?”

“No”, I answered with discomfort.

“The Book of Mormon?”

“No”.

“The Doctrilne and Covenants?”

“No”.

“I don’t need to go any further. You haven’t done the first things necessary to find out. You are the biggest hypocrite I have ever met in my life!”

The guy cold cocked me. He was right and I had nothing to say. But I made an inner vow: No one would ever say such a thing to me again and tell the truth. I became totally active in the Church with a vengence, believing that after giving it my all, it wouldn’t work, and I could walk away from it with clear conscience.

It took 35 years, a science Ph.D., three divorces and two excommunications to walk away with a clear conscience. How’s that for a psychosocial Mormon warping!?

Yet, here we are now on the sidelines, where something of a familiar community still binds us as we blog each other. I like to know your true heart-felt stories. They are legitimate and important New Mormon History.
Gordon Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 8:24 AM
For those of you who have a job, and responsibilities and don’t have the money to just hit the road and “go find yourself”, here are some ideas. Quit as many of your non mandatory reponsibilites as possible so you’ll have time to think. Find an “oasis” where you can be alone for several hours at a time. Tell your mother in law to “butt out”, there is a reason for all those nasty mother in law jokes. Tell your spouse that you love her but you’ve got to have some time to think, if you sound desperate enough she’ll believe you. Organize your time, if possible, to squeeze out a few extra hours from work, you know they don’t pay you enough anyway.
It’s amazing what you can do with a little free time alone. Time to clear you head, re think your life, plan and organize. Read, the greatest escape in the world is a good book.
I started in 1986 and it worked well enough that I just decided to just keep doing it.
I did have to give up my church responsibilities, they are very time consuming.
Even if you have to keep working, you can have a psychosocial moratorium or as I call it, going to my “oasis”. Good Luck!

Gordon
PS “All real freedom is in the mind!”
Stephen Carter Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 8:43 AM
Amen, Brother Gordon.

We just moved into a new area, and we’re doing our darndest to stay out of the way of incoming responsibilities. For example, the high school still needs a drama coach, even though I’d probably do just fine. And by teacher standards, i have all the time in the world (in other words, I frequently get a full 8 hours of sleep at night).

The difficulty is balancing your own downtime needs with what the community expects of you. A few Sundays ago we met a lady who said, “I moved here from the East thinking I’d be able to slow down. But there’s just as much here to do as there is anywhere else.” The community expects a lot in order to feel like you’re being a good citizen. Especially when you’re a teacher. Most communities still treat teachers like they’re single with nothing to do but chaperone football trips and spearhead fundraisers. As a result, teachers are frazzled firefighters rather than peaceful rounded mentors. And then the Mormons, well, if you don’t have three callings, you ain’t a real Mormon.

I wonder what it would be like if people stopped working themselves to death and took some real time to be healthy. Hey, didn’t Ghandi tell us to be the change we want to see? I’ll take the challenge!
Stephen Carter Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 8:51 AM
Great story, Eugene.

I have to admit that your bishop did have a point there. If one believes oneself to be a seeker of truth, then one had better be frequenting the places that claim to have a part of it.

I feel like I did my due dilligence, being the guilt-ridden, cognitively disassociated Mormon I was for the first 27 years of my life.

But it seems kind of sad that you would have to put so much of your life into finding out what you don’t need. Or maybe I’m reading you wrong. Maybe you did need to go through all that to appreciate what you have now.

I have a friend who calls himself a post-Mormon now. He says he is honestly grateful for the years he was Mormon as they gave him a deep insight into a part of life he might never have known had he stayed on his original non-Mormon course. He compares his experience with the rings of a tree. There are some rings in his tree that are Mormon rings. He doesn’t feel any need to excise them. But now, new rings are growing along with his new outlook.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 10:21 AM
Stephen, re #13, your post-Mormon friend’s analogy to growth rings of a tree is right on! That same young bishop who cold cocked me back in 1957 had become the stake president by 1975, when I returned to the Church after a ten year absense of learning and further high adventure (including visiting the USSR representing the governor of Oregon and discovering that those guys over there were like my guys over here–they even referred to their leaders as “the Brethren”!) . He allowed me to craft my re-entry in creative ways, such as: 1) having my oldest son Nick rebaptise me in the ocean in Laguna Beach where my first excommunication notification had occurred. 2) having the baptism occur on a day (25 JUly) precisely ten years after the event that put me on collision course with the ecclesiastical order.

But a week or so before getting that far, I had to present myself before his high council, which was hostile to my return, to put it mildly. This SP allowed my to have 17- year-old Nick be in attendence with me during that HC grilling as a sympathetic personal witness. After an hour or so of interrogation, it didn’t look like the HC was about to let me through the gate. That was OK by me, because I had no particular expectations other than to follow the promptings on the path I felt. But then something amazing happened. The SP arose to speak in my behalf to the HC and said with great energy: “Brethren, this man had had irrefutable experience! You cannot ask him to deny what he has personally experienced and knows to be true.”

With that the HC hostility ceased. And, after mumbling among themselves for a few minutes and looking at the floor a bit sheepishly, one by one each HC member raised his hand to receive me. It was a deeply moving event for me. I would never have predicted it. Nor would my mother have predicted it. She was sitting just outside the HC chambers (she being the SP’s private secretary). As my son Nick and I exited the HC room and passed by her desk, I heard her whisper to herself, “Oh, ye of little faith.”
RorySwensen Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 1:45 PM
A Mormon male-only publication – we could call it EQ with a glossy cover and – wait, I may be going down the wrong track here…

As to your questions, I’m not sure. The focused movements and publications tend to be those who have motivation to achieve specific ends or advancements. I can see how that translates into a vibrant discussion, but I wonder if such a discussion among men would be sustainable? Is there something that we, collectively, would seek with sufficient fervor to engage in the manner that would be required?

I think there are interesting and viable conversations to have – is it possible to have those in established forums? Or is this something that would require, and be sustainable in, an exclusive venue?
Stephen Carter Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 3:01 PM
Yeah, good question.

Just for fun, let’s say the first issue is on erotica (a.k.a. pornography), everyone’s favorite taboo subject. Having a critical discussion about erotica without women around. Well, that would be pretty interesting. It is never ever talked about in Mormon culture except as a “plague to be avoided at all costs.”

From my own limited point of view, I think the plauge notion is one of the reasons why so many Mormon men (according to Conference talks) are so intrigued by portrayals of eros. That which is forbidden is often seductive, and if we don’t know how to approach it skillfully, it can bring us down.

It would be interesting to approach this subject as something we can actually talk about without calling each other to repentance or adjourning to Joe’s Adult Movie Shack.

One article could be about the history of erotica in sacred contexts (those crazy temples in India for example). Another about how some couples use it in their intimate life. Another on the line (or lack thereof) between constructive and destructive approaches to renditions of sexual scenarios (Rodin vs. Hustler). Another about how various religious authors have approached the subject.

The next issue could be about work.

We Mormons are freaks about work. We’re constantly at it. Our turbo charged capitalist, keep up with the Jones’, achievement-oriented society certainly has a hand in our obsession. Men are quite affected by this. They work at their jobs, then they work on civic activities, then they work on church activities, and from time to time they wonder what happened to their lives. I’ll bet some men feel trapped by the workload put upon them. I’ll bet other men just can’t get enough of it, but when they get to the climax of a job, they wonder why they don’t feel fulfilled.

One article could compare the way Mormon men work with the rest of the country. Another could focus on how Mormon men feel about women entering the marketplace – how it affects their sense of worth. Another could be a survey of how much time men spend on work vs activities they really enjoy. Another could be about men who have managed to actually find a way to enjoy their work, using it as a nourishing act rather than a sapping act. Another could compare Weber’s Protestant work ethic with the Mormon work ethic.

Then we could hit the idea of authority, priesthood, children, mid-life crises, dying we could go on and on. Of course, a blog would have to be attached to this publication so we could talk about all this stuff.
John Remy Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 3:26 PM
I learn a lot by hanging out with feminists. I can gripe about patriarchy and explore the workings of dominant gender stereotypes. But my presence always limits conversation in a variety of ways: I don’t have much to add to conversations about nursing babies or menstruation. Women who feel intimidated by a male presence may remain silent. I’m a big advocate of female-only spaces and male+female feminist conversations.

But I’m also a proponent of what Stephen is suggesting as well. I’d like to see the creation of spaces where men can discuss male-specific issues that break the” patriarchal/authority/hierarchical” models. We need a space where we can discuss the following:

How to become more nurturing, sensitive, empathetic, listening.
How to feel less resentful when our wives earn more or are more successful than we are.
How to draw the line between healthy appreciation of a woman’s body and sexuality and the outright objectification of women.
The costs of being a man in the LDS church and in our society. (e.g. being ‘tough’, limiting of emotional expression, pressure to be the sole fiancial provider for a family, etc.)
How to communicate by sharing experiences and feelings, instead of relying wholly on rational argumentation.
Problems associated with having more institutional religious authority and power than the women in our lives.

I think that some of these subjects could be (and have been) discussed in Elder’s Quorum, but because I think that many members would feel limited in their freedom to criticize or question patriarchal norms. I think that web-spaces like this would be ideal for this sort of conversation.
John Remy Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 3:28 PM
Shoot, I didn’t mean to ignore your last comment (#2), Stephen, but it wasn’t there when I started typing comment #3!
Stephen Carter Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 4:07 PM
Hey John, looks like me ‘n’ you have similar ideas. You did a much better job at identifying loci of conversation than I did, though.

Are there any forums like that out there already, or does it need to be started from scratch?
Rory Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 4:24 PM
So where does fight club and football fit in?

Okay, seriously, I can see the value and where you are going – but part of this would have to be balanced by an appreciation of what it is to be male, testosterone and all, right?

I do want to be nurturing, sensitive, empathetic, listening – especially as a husband and father. And I would certainly be interested in the merits and techniques of communicating by sharing experiences and feelings, but I also happen to like being biased toward rationality (note, this is NOT being written as a blanket stereotype), and I’m looking forward to sitting down tonight in front of the TV to tune in to SPIKE or ESPN and watch a good fight.

Jeez, I’m coming off here as being threatened. Am I making sense? Any Man Forum would have to address openly the challenges we face, but also celebrate our – for lack of a better term – manliness? No?
John Remy Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 4:53 PM
Rory, you’re making perfect sense, and let me be the first to say that while I’m in favor of challenging stereotypes of masculinity, I’m not saying that we should abandon all that defines it in our society. But I think what we’re suggesting is that the places where these attributes are valued exist in abundance. I’m not even asking for equal time for a more critical discussion–just some time, and a place.

Stephen, thank you so much for bringing this topic up–you’ve just created such a forum! Unfortunately, I’m not familiar with very many of such places–isolated blogs, mostly. One of the best resources is Hugo Schwyzer’s personal blog. Hugo is a straight, pro-life, pro-feminist, Episcopalian church youth leader and gender studies professor. He’s got a lot of cred in the feminist blogosphere, and regularly tackles male issues in ways that challenge both mainstream society’s norms and accepted feminist approaches.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 7:46 PM
Again, as has been the case in the resonses to Stephen’s article Assending and Descendiing, there are no female respondants so far. Of all the subjects for women to comment on in concert with us guys, this should be the one. I miss their voices.

Let’s see if I can inch up on this.

How many of you guys are familiar with the concept of the “anima”, i.e. the feminine aspect of the male? (Corresponding to the “animus” in the female.) We guys all have this feminine aspect, which Jung called the anima, but we are generally unconscious of it–especially good Mormon priesthood holders. When a male “falls in love” with a female, for example, that is usually an indicator of having projected his anima (an interior self-aspect) onto an exterior female. Trouble begins when the projection (his interior aspect) does not fit the reality of the external female, and she doesn’t behave like he wants or expects. The dead give away is when he finally says, “Oh, you aren’t who I thought you were.” Or, “I don’t know you anymore,” etc. That’s because the projection was unrealistic to begin with. Such is the hazard of “falling in love”. You’re listening to a guy who knows what he’s talking about. Further, it is definately not cool to marry one’s anima–it’s not fair to either party, because that’s a set-up for a big time power struggle long term. Especially for temple marrieds.

I’d be willing to bet that our old Brother Joseph unconsciously projected his anima onto a whole lot of females and tried to get those projections to stick. Some females accepted the projection, others didn’t. He had trouble with the latter type. Lots of trouble.

I suspect that most Mormon men, especially those virtuous RMs fresh off their missions, are really susceptible to projecting their animas onto the first females that smile at them, whether on or off their missions. It’s good to get acquainted with you anima before you mistake her for somebody else.

What do you think or feel about that?
Matt Thurston Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 8:07 PM
I dig the idea. Where can I sign up? I like the idea of an online forum, but a face-to-face meeting with real-time conversation would also be very productive. (And it need not take place out in the woods with beating drums… but it could, I guess?) But I love all of the topics put forth so far.

It seems at a minimum men should be getting together to talk about evolving womens roles. If 1/2 of the population is redefining what it means to be them, shouldn’t the other 1/2 discuss what is happening, not just to better understand the evolving half, but also to understand its impact on the, er, non-evolving half? When women redefine their roles does it happen in a vacuum? Certainly there is an interior component that is private — “This is who I (woman) am, not who you (men, others) say I am” — but the exterior component — how you (men, or others) relate to me (woman) — is just as important.

So, switching gears… when John talks about not having much to add to such topics as nursing babies or menstruation, I wonder if we have equivalent male topics? Are such topics sexual– like masturbation, sexual performance issues (like impotence, erectile dysfunction, etc.), sexual addiction, or uh, penis envy? Do men need or want to talk about these things? Or would an equivalent male topic be, like, hair loss.
Kathy S. Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 9:01 PM
Fascinating discussion. When I was writing my response for the AML list I was tempted to say (to the disappointed would-be contributor), “Why don’t you start a men’s journal?” but couldn’t figure out how to say it without sounding catty.

As I said in the AML post, a mixed-gender publication is no more or less valuable than agender- exclusive one, but it will inevitably be different. I’m confident that a women-only submissions policy (or close to it) enables Segullah to be something it couldn’t be otherwise. I believe the same would be true for a publication that focuses on male experiences.

I hope you guys really do start one. I’d love to read it.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
October 5th, 2006 at 9:24 PM
Welcome Kathy! What a relief to break the feminine drought.
Kathy S. Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 8:44 AM
Thanks, Eugene.

So, here’s some questions for you men: do you think that the very concept of getting together and talking about your experiences is something “too girly” for some? Do you think one reason why women’s spaces, journals, etc evolve more frequently is because women are more prone to gather and talk (and write) about their lives?
Preston Bissell Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 9:32 AM
Kathy S. Asks:

So, here?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s some questions for you men: do you think that the very concept of getting together and talking about your experiences is something ?¢Ç¨?ìtoo girly?¢Ç¨¬ù for some? Do you think one reason why women?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s spaces, journals, etc evolve more frequently is because women are more prone to gather and talk (and write) about their lives?

I reply:

Yes, and yes. I’m not sure that “too girly” is the appropriate phrase, but the fact of the matter is, men don’t like to talk about their “feelings” with anybody, let alone other men. I’m not certain if it’s a matter of brain chemistry or cultural norms, but that’s the way it is.
I enjoy watching “Dr. Phil” (so, shoot me), but I wouldn’t go on that show and talk about my life for all of the tea in China. (Not that I have anything interesting to discuss.) I’m always amazed that so many women will go on national television and “let it all hang out.”
It’s not just a Mormon thing either. I don’t know how non-Western cultures affect men in terms of such discussions, but istm that it’s a fairly common European trait, passed on to us Americans, that we “simply don’t discuss those things.”
If there were a demand for a male-oriented publication devoted to discussions of male “issues”, other than sex and hunting, there would be one by now. The only way most men would subscribe to such a publication is if it were delivered in a plain, brown envelope, and had a picture of a gun on the cover.
Kathy S. Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 10:09 AM
My husband is continually amazed (and dismayed) at the intimaticy of conversation that springs up spontaneously between women who barely know each other. We had a new couple in the ward over for dinner, and within 5 minutes I was telling the wife about how I had my toenail ripped off at the podiatrist’s. She didn’t bat an eye, but both men looked incredulous.

I think body-talk starts early for women and only intensifies as they reach childbearing age. What’s the big deal about a bloody toenail when you’re used to talking about bloody discharge and bloody nipples?

Another case in point: relationship-talk. My husband’s female co-worker was trying to squeeze info out of him regarding a male co-worker she’s attracted to (my husband works closely with this guy on a small-team project). “Is he seeing anyone?” she asked my husband. “How the heck would I know?” he said. “Well, don’t you work with him every day? How can you spend hours a day with someone and not know if they’re dating?” she said. How, indeed? But there you have it.

But it seems to me that men chat pretty freely on the blogs I read. Even about their personal lives. Why do you think that is?
Eric Goold Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Brother Carter.

A fascinating idea you have here. Clearly these are all questions we never got to in EQ in Fairbanks. The fact that as men we feel like we have to ask if it would be “okay” or somehow “acceptable” to have an all-male Mormon publication is an indication of the very fact that such a publication is NECESSARY, even vital. While it may be true that in the past, especially our past, the all-male demographic ruled the day, it is also true that in today’s world, where every sub-grouping and cult you can possibly imagine can have its own voice, would it be so wrong to give voice to the all-male Mormons who feel existential angst (however SMALL that group may be)??

Central to such a voice must be questions that address life for the single Mormon male. Why is it that single Mormon men are regarded somehow to be failures? Why must they be married to be considered equal? The most difficult issue: as a single man, why is my ticket to the Celestial Kingdom denied? Why do Mormons define manhood as being a breadwinner, getting married and having kids? Is there no other definition of “what it means to be a man”? Beyond the obvious scriptural and doctrinal restrictions, why is the Mormon culture so anti-single? When the Elder’s Quorum is full of married, have-kids fathers, what does the single man do when every week every lesson is about how to be a good dad? (And why do those Elders generally sleep through the lesson??)

You’ve heard the old saying: behind every good Priesthood holder is a better woman. In my experience, I would say that generally, this is true. So are single men BAD priesthood holders?

The greatest irony of all: how is it that Mormon women are the one’s who wear the pants? (Speaking metaphorically, of course.)

As always, Brother Carter, you get to the heart of the matter. Semper Fi.
Nick Literski Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 11:19 AM
As the feminist movement has (thankfully) progressed, the church has taken some interesting turns. We continually hear that women are inherently “more spiritual,” as if a pair of ovaries were somehow the equivalent of a Urim and Thummim. We hear talks, both local and general, that ridicule men, but never, ever women. Compare Mother’s Day vs. Father’s Day sacrament meeting talks. On Mother’s Day, you hear earthly mothers glorified. On Father’s Day, you hear a few nods toward earthly fathers (in wards that even bother to recognize Father’s Day—some don’t). Instead, you hear a great deal about how wonderful *Heavenly* father is, along with some supposedly good-natured jabs at how silly and foolish earthly fathers are. Oddly enough, most of this behavior is by men, rather than by women. The “social norm” has turned anti-male, at least in public discourse.

Yes, this is relevant to your question—let me explain. When I served in elders quorum presidencies, I was always interested to watch reactions to proposed quorum activities. These men were convinced that it was WRONG for them to have a quorum activity which consisted of only the men. Some argued that doing so was violating the importance of the family. Others (perhaps the more honest ones?) argued that their wives would be furious at such a thing, despite the fact that sisters’ activities are almost always sisters-only. The double standard is remarkable, and even more remarkable, it is enforced by the men upon themselves.

As much as I think your idea of a male journal is needed and brilliant, I suspect these attitudes would be a big obstacle.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 1:21 PM
So, Eugene, is this animus stuff the reason why men are always falling in love with strippers and porn stars and prostitutes? Because she has everything: the availble, sculpted body, the knowledge of how to get him riled up, and that accepting look in her eyes?

You’re saying he projects the female part of him on her because she’s willing to be a mirror?

“Hey, I have a good looking anima.”

I can totally see what you’re saying though. My wife and I knew each other quite well for about five years before we got married. But now, as I look back I see that in many ways I was projecting my anima on her (for some reason that just sounds perverse). She was always looking to please people, always getting A’s, working her little hiney off at work, etc. So she was set up receive that projection pretty well.

It’s only been the last few years that I’ve started discovering how much more interesting she is when she’s being herself (even when that means she’s grumpy). Maybe I was lucky and just started getting tired of the female half of myself and wanted someone a little more interesting around.

Which is still pretty egotistical. But I never claimed to be anything else.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 1:32 PM
Gotta empathize with you in post #6 Rory.

Fight Club is one of my very favorite movies. Brad Pitt’s characters kick major butt. I loved him in Fight Club, I loved him in Seven, I loved him in Mr. and Mrs. Smith (”that’s 100 percent Mr. Smith you have there, honey”) and I heard he’s going to play John Galt in a film version of Atlas Shrugged.

YES!

I don’t think I’d like Brad much in person. But his characters – I wish I could be that manly.

I wouldn’t want this hypothetical blog (EQ, I love it) to cater to only thinkabilly types. I’d want all the elements of masculinity represented. The only requirements would be that no one could call anyone else a pansy or a chauvinist, and that everything is up for questioning. You’d be welcome to say, “this is what I believe” but not, “this is what you should believe lest we question the existence of your family jewels.” Both Robert Smith and Jesse “The Body” Ventura should be welcome.

I’d LOVE to discuss why you love Spike so much. Or why you record Desperate Housewives on your TiVo.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 1:47 PM
Goold,

Fantastic list of questions that require deep discussion. I hereby invite you to be a permablogger on the hypothetical but probably soon to be all too real Mormon men only blog.

Women can only post if they pretend they’re men.

Let’s see, who else would we need? How about a permablogger looking at the Mormon male from a divorced point of view, a homosexual point of view, a football lovin’, WWF watchin’, wrestling coach point of view, a culture-other-than-american point of view, a postMormon point of view, a psychologist’s point of view, … who else do we need?

And what should we call this hypothetical venture? (Sorry Rory, EQ is already taken on blogger.com)
Stephen Carter Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 2:03 PM
NIck, your comment is a post all in itself. We have about half a dozen comments here so far that could well bear oceans of future discussion. You’re right, there does seem to be a male-hating element to the Church doesn’t there? I think that’s partly a reaction to feminism and Mormon male’s ignorance of how it’s affecting them.
Kathy S. Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 2:37 PM
Oh boy, back in my feminist days I could’ve had a heyday with some of these comments.

The deification of mothers on Mother’s day (as well as the rest of the year) does not serve women well. This is one reason why so many Mormon women dread the occasion (and one reason why so many Mormon mothers suffer from a guilt complex).

I think it’s highly possible that in wards without a high degree of camraderie in the quorums, many men wouldn’t want male-only EQ activities because they have no idea how to relate to each other without their wives around. Not that men don’t know how to hang out, but rather that they might be more uncomfortable hanging out with guys that they’re not actually friends with (and may not be inclined to be friends with) without women there to do the social networking/lubrication. Am I wrong?

(And I for one would gladly send my husband off to play paint ball).

I don’t like the stupid-father jokes either (anyone here read the Berenstain Bears?). But any feminist could lecture you about the power play involved there. It’s like the making-fun-of-the-boss jokes that serve bosses so well–gives the underlings the illusion of power.

But since these are no longer my feminist days I’ll leave it at that.

and btw, we welcome male commentors on Segullah’s blog (http://segullah.org/blog/).
Rory Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 3:09 PM
Stephen! That Desperate Housewives comment was via email – you’ve outed me! Yes, my TiVo is set to record DH every Sunday – I’m hooked. And as far as Spike, I record the Ultimate Fighter “reality” show, a mixed martial arts bloodfest. Love it!

And Kathy, you write:

Not that men don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know how to hang out, but rather that they might be more uncomfortable hanging out with guys that they?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re not actually friends with (and may not be inclined to be friends with) without women there to do the social networking/lubrication.

Bingo! I have a few friends, but I’m not very interested in being buddies with a lot of people. I haven’t time, and don’t want to spend the energy. With work and family the focus of attention, I’m content to have a small circle of friends with similar interests. Otherwise it seems manufactured and requires just too much effort.

So, to sum up my comments on this thread, I’m a fight loving, anti-social, reality-tv addict. How sad.
Denae Says:
October 6th, 2006 at 5:07 PM
I’ll put in my vote that I think that feminists should support a male forum. There is a benefit to women for there to be a forum for men to discuss issues that are maybe a little more intimate than say you might discuss in the Ensign or other more public discourses. If we go with the premise that bottling up emotions is bad in the same way that a boiler needs a release valve, a forum for men provides the opportunity for men to slowly release that pressure in a productive manner in a different method than just beating each other up on the football field/basketball court. In the same way that women share ideas on what works for them, maybe men can do the same, benefiting themselves, and therefore benefiting their relationships.

If anyone wants a very interesting read on men and their social interactions, read “Self Made Man: One Woman’s Journey Into Manhood and Back” by Norah Vincent. Norah passed herself off as a man for a year and a half to study men. She joined a bowling league, an overtly mascule job, and a monastary. I found it a fascinating insight into gender, masculinity, social groups and perception. I would recommend it to anyone.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 1:04 AM
Kathy, I think you have broken something open for us! At least for me!

Suddenly I understand something that I didn’t get before. At last a few things are beginning to make sense to me and I hope you will stick with us (me) to help midwife (no offense) what seems to me to be new understanding.

A few folks out there know me and some of my background. Of those few I suspect many, if not most, are embarrassed by my openness. I say “embarrassed” because when I dared to tell it as straight (though often bizarre) as I know how at the recent SL symposium, I am met by silence. Not that I need anybody?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s blessings or encouragement. Actually, I had initially feared presenting that paper and being viewed as an exhibitionist. In that fear, I almost withdrew the paper before coming to the symposium. But something in me would not allow that to happen and I felt challenged to take the risk. Thanks to your insight above, Kathy (#12), I have realized that that “something in me” was my feminine self-aspect urging me on!

My God! Does this now make sense! Allow me to continue. I believe this is different from my anima, Stephen, but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not going to quibble about that distinction just now.

In my above mentioned Symposium paper “Annealing and Healing” I mention having had a dream in 1964 on Joseph Smith’s birth date (December 23) where I am a beautiful woman with a bad reputation, being pursued by jealous wives and husbands and hiding under a house. Later, after eluding them, I go to the temple to get my things from my locker. A woman nearby tells me that when it comes time to stand before a judgment place, no one will be there to defend me. There are seminary people nearby who look wholesome, but they do not notice me.

That dream astounded me at the time and I couldn’t figure what it meant, since I was new to taking dreams seriously then and didn’t then know how to analyze or understand them. I was also a pillar in my community, a committed family man (wife and 5 children), a ward leader (EQ), in demand as a singer in various LDS stakes and a rising young professional scientist at a prestigious nuclear laboratory. I had also just been offered a position by the late eminent J.B. Rhine of Duke University (of ESP fame) to join his new Foundation for Research on the Nature of Man.

I had also just written my first poem ?¢Ç¨?ìPilgrim?¢Ç¨¬ù.

I had gone to see Rhine by invitation with an urgent idea I’d had the previous summer just after the death of my father. It was an idea not even close to my professional training. Since Rhine was the recognized world authority on such strange matters, I wanted him to tell me whether or not I was crazy. He responded by offering me a research position in his new foundation.

Please stay with me here, Kathy and Stephen. This blogging business is becoming more important than I had anticipated. It is where it gets weird and more currently interesting. Weird because my life was about to go into upheaval back then because of my naivet?É¬© regarding the Church. Interesting because of a surprise email received only a few weeks ago (September 14).

The email came out of the blue from Becki J, a woman I had known 14 years earlier in Ventura, who had been an early supporter in helping build the CREEI Institute, a company utilizing my dream-work concepts designed specifically for business and industry. But I had lost contact with her after having been put out of business by the local SP who excommunicated me for publicly refusing to sustain the general Church leaders.

Anyway, this woman (now out of the Church at her direction) emailed me to tell me she had come across some of those CREEI materials in her files, along with the program notes to a Relief Society program I had presented to the stake Relief Society on its 150th anniversary (March 17, 1992). She felt strongly prompted to find me and did a google search, thereby finding my website. On that site I’d posted some of my most memorable dreams. She read through them quickly and came upon the one above. The next morning she awoke with an interpretation of it, something she had never done before with another?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s dream. She had to tell me about it.

To add to the mystery, I had been recently again been wrestling with this same old dream and trying to get a new perspective on it (with JD?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s “Dream Yoga” technique) but had gotten bogged down. It was in this stalled place that I get this email! with an interpretation that rang true to me!

Here is her interpretation:

So, your dream, dear friend, (I cannot find it this morning on your site, but it is unnecessary) was the one of emptying your locker in the temple. Only a few thoughts–obviously your “leaving” the Church, being excommunicated and needing to “remove” yourself and belongings from it. Also interesting that the group of men there were seminary (education) not general authoriites, which as their titles imply, have represented the “authority” or power, not necessarily the growth or treasures of the mind. And then the fact that you were a promiscuous, attractive woman…the tempting of the base instincts of others’ desire to think freely and courageously define their own paths, as they tepidly play I-love-you, I-love-you-not with you–now standing defiantly, hypocritically aloof with, I never knew her!

Well, this is far too much for this blog, I’m sure. And perhaps some of you who have gotten this far are shaking your heads. But, Kathy, I now know something I didn’t know before your message above. Thank you.
Zhenya Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 1:33 PM
With the realization that came to me in reading Kathy’s #12 comment, I (EK) have changed my sign-on name to my Russian name (which my Swedish wife uses for me). The name “Zhenya” (Russian version of “Gene”) can be used by either man or woman. My father named me after his oldest niece, Yevgenia (Eugenia) whom I met in 1996, not long before she died in Melitopol, Ukraine (my dad’s home town) and long after my dad died in California in 1964 without ever knowing what had happened to his family after he left his country in 1920 as a refugee of the Russian Revolution. This old first cousin, Zhenya, had always wondered whatever had happened to her “Uncle Kolya”. I had come to tell her all about it and about the strange people called Mormons that her uncle had married into and that I had grown up as.
Kathy S. Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 2:33 PM
Eugene/Zhenya,

I’m happy that you’re growing in understanding. Let me know if there’s anything I can do for you.
Zhenya Says:
October 7th, 2006 at 9:54 PM
Kathy,

I would like to know your personall feelings about our Mormon culture (the inner reality) versus what they are for our society (outer reality). I hope that’s not too loaded. If I were asked such a question, I’d have to answer it from different parts of me: my intellectual self, my feminine feeling self and my 5 year old simple believer self (who sees guardian angels).

I want to tell you about a first time experience being moved by a scriptural passage just weeks after the 23 Dec 64 dream I mentioned earlier. That one verse began to make the dream make sense. We have been talking about women being able to share personal issues better than can men. That’s what you could do for me: deep listening.
Kathy S. Says:
October 8th, 2006 at 2:43 PM
Zhenya, you can reach me by email: editor@segullah.org.
Zhenya Says:
October 9th, 2006 at 8:10 AM
Thank you Kathy. I wrote to your email address last night, but it bounced. Shall I try again?
Kathy S. Says:
October 9th, 2006 at 8:29 AM
Hmmm…that’s strange. Yes, try again. I don’t know what the problem could be–I get a steady stream of mail at that address.
Zhenya Says:
October 9th, 2006 at 10:05 AM
OK, I’ll try again plus two other attachments.
Zhenya Says:
October 10th, 2006 at 11:18 AM
Kathy,

Was your quick, kind response to my email a gentle dismissal? Had you actually the time to read the attachments before replying? If so, did they not speak to you? It seems not.

Surely the real challenge for us in our common Mormon culture is to truly hear and value each other?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interior realities. You allude to yours, but do not disclose anything. I wish we could do this with each other. The challenge doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t include that any one person?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interior reality should be?¢Ç¨Äùor can be–that of another. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a question of feeling safe enough to risk their disclosure. Yes, that can be daunting and swamping, not only for the discloser, but for anyone who would consider that which is disclosed. And in the face of such a challenge, dismissal is too often the watch word. The male dominated attitude that pervades our society (not culture?¢Ç¨Äùplease keep the difference clear–I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m using these terms as Wilber uses them) is simply unaware or dismissive of such realities. It was this attitude from the beginning?¢Ç¨Äùeven among our own people–that evoked Joseph?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s lament: ?¢Ç¨?ìNo man knows my history?¢Ç¨¬¶?¢Ç¨¬ù and still no man does!–although some try, such as our Michael Quinn. But how about the women? I am not talking about feminists. I am talking about women who know their femininity (as D. H. Lawrence observed it) and don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t need to prove their manhood.
SunstoneBlog.com » Our Shared Responsibility Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 9:31 AM
[...] But with that voice comes a responsibility. A responsibility that is reflected in the direction that Sunstone is moving, and one that is outlined in this Blog?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Comment Policy. As this forum continues to grow, it is important to remember that for every voice we hear, there are numerous voices silently observing, reading, listening, and finding their own spiritual path. These voices are seeking answers, hoping for resolution, and navigating their way along a path that others have already tread. There is great wisdom and perspective available from those who have emerged from this path as persons of integrity and faith. There is also wisdom and value in our collective journey, sharing among those of us who are in the midst of this path now. [...]
Stephen Carter Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 10:46 AM
There’s a discussion very similar to this going on on the Association for Mormon Letters email list. It’s interesting because of how varying people’s views of dismissive or offensive comments seem to be.

One list member wrote:

“I found Elder David A. Bednar’s talk, “And None Shall Offend Them,” to be a refreshing departure from the growing cultural norm being cultivated among us to always speak sensitively and carefully. He places squarely on the shoulders of the hearer the responsibility for the reaction. I think this is just as it should be.”

and

“I tend to treat people the way I like to be treated and I don’t like to be treated with kid gloves.

“Strange, isn’t it? I feel respected by people who tell me where to get off. I feel disrespected by people who are afraid to tell me what they think.”

Another wrote:

“I [...] think it’s [...] important to communicate truth in a way that predisposes people to listen and understand what we’re saying. Spontaneous honesty, bluntness, knee-jerk reactions–all of these, in my experience, interfere with clear communication (when talking about matters where emotions run high) far more often than they facilitate it. I believe that in general, my carefully thought-out responses are more truthful than my knee-jerk reactions–partly because I try to take the time to think about where the other person is coming from, and how the other person is likely to interpret what I’m saying. The importance of delivery (when it comes to communication), as I see it, is precisely *because* the goal is to tell the truth.”

I think both of these comments are good. It seems to me that our true feelings and thoughts are always in flux. They can be changed by by reading something, or by delving deeply into your own thoughts through writing. I’m not saying that you get closer to what you actually think. I’m saying that things are always changing.

So In a way, I’d disagree with the idea that we’re trying to uncover truth around here. At least, that isn’t my goal. I think a better forumuation is to say that I’m trying to build up the story of my spiritual and intellectual life. Getting to the right place isn’t very important to me; going on an interesting journey is. I think that if people could drop their insistence that “truth prevail immediately,” we’d have a lot better discussions. We’d spend more time trying to understand each other (and we all have interesting stories to tell) rather that trying to gain the high ground.

By the way, for an absolutely fascinating read on just this subject, read the first few chapters of Wayne Booth’s autobiography _My Many Selves_.
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 11:15 AM
I’m adjusting my name again. “Zhenya” is Russian for “Gene”. But, in English I’d rather be addressed as “Eugene” these days (since only my brother and my very old friends call me “Gene” any more)

That said, I want to say “hear!, hear!” to both Rory and Stephen.

Rory reminds us “that posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.” Which reminds me of Ken Wilber’s statement that “No one is smart enough to be wrong all the time.”

Stephen asserts “I think that if people could drop their insistence that ‘truth prevail immediately’, we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d have a lot better discussions.” Which reminds me of Wilber’s assersion “that the amazing fact is that truth alone will NOT set you free. Truthfulness will set you free.”

I thank Dan W for pointing me to Wilber at the 2005 SL Sunstone symposium. Wilber’s “transcend and include” formula for eternal progression is powerfully full of Light.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 11:44 AM
Rory states:

Perhaps the most significant portion of the comment policy ?¢Ç¨Äú and this policy extends to all of Sunstone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s forums ?¢Ç¨Äú is that posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.

I ponder:

I’ve held the opinion through much of my life that this policy is the correct one to pursue. However, in recent years I’ve begun to question it. The simple fact of the matter is, a lot of “ideas and beliefs” which some people “hold sacred” are just downright goofy. Is it not possible to respect a person, and his/her right to believe in anything they choose, while at the same time holding *some* beliefs to be completely wrong?
Another aspect of this, which I believe applies especially to Mormons, is that a person might disagree with the “sacred” beliefs of others while at the same time respecting those beliefs. Upon my departure from Mormonism I wrote a number of my long-time LDS friends informing them of my decision, and the reasons for it. Most replied that they respected my decision. A couple of them immediately accused me of disrespecting/denigrating their “sacred” beliefs, which I most certainly did not.
The knife of respect cuts both ways: While we should respect the ideas and beliefs which others hold to be “sacred”, we should not assume that those who disagree with those beliefs are automatically being disrespectful, and we should also respect the right of others to disagree, even reject some beliefs which some of us hold to be “sacred.”
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 12:34 PM
Preston says: The knife of respect cuts both ways…

To sharpen the two-edged blade of your knife (sword?) of respect, wasn’t if Voltaire who said “I completely disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?

Does anyone out there in our Mormon culture/society have a better statement than this? I think not, unless you can add “or excommunication” after the word “death”.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 3:17 PM
What Voltaire said might apply to society in general (or, at least it should), but it doesn’t apply within a church setting. Pres. Hinckley has said as much. IIRC, he told an interviewer that people may have their doubts, but they shouldn’t express them in public.
I can tell you from experience that asking the wrong questions in church can lead to some less-than-friendly responses. I first witnessed this many years ago in a ward in Oklahoma. One of the members of the Gospel Doctrine class persisted in asking some pointed questions about the Pearl of Great Price. The teacher threw down his manual and stomped out of class in a fit. Later, the man who asked the questions was called before the Stake Presidency and excommunicated. (BTW, I was called to replace the teacher who stomped out. It took me a number of years to find out that the person asking the questions had a legitimate point.)
But, to respond to your question: I am not aware of many people who will defend one’s right to speak one’s mind in church classes to the point of excommunication.
Dan Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 9:47 AM
I appreciate this post from Rory and the thoughtful responses it has generated. Rory’s use of the term, “investigator safe” reminded me of the editorial I wrote with that very title a few years ago (March 2004, Sunstone). I always hesitate to link to something I’ve written, but in this case, I’ll venture it for the sake of those who may read this blog but never comment, or who wonder about the riskiness of Sunstone’s trying to be an “open forum.” Even if you ultimately judge our kind of venture to be unwise or impossible, you can at least know why I want to keep working at it.

Zhenya/Eugene asks if there’s a statement within LDS culture/society better than Voltaire’s about disagreeing but still defending another’s right to speak. I’m not sure it’s better, but what came to mind was the story Sterling McMurrin tells of a meeting with David O. McKay, who had heard that some of the brethren were intent on seeing McMurrin excommunicated for his various public stances challenging certain Church policies and teachings. McKay (Church president at the time) is reported to have said, “They cannot do this to you! All I will say is that if they put you on trial for excommunication, I will be there as the first witness on your behalf” (Matters of Conscience: Conversations with Sterling M. McMurrin, Signature Books, 1996, pp.198-99).

Cheers,
Dan Wotherspoon
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 11:49 AM
Dan, Thanks for that great story about President McKay’s defense of McMurrin. He is one of my heros and the last legit president of the Church, as far as I’m concerned. Isn’t this story in Greg Prince’s recent biography of McKay?

Preston, you say I am not aware of many people who will defend one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s right to speak one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s mind in church classes to the point of excommunication.

You are responding to one. And you have put your finger on the single most important issue facing our culture and society: the primacy of individual conscience.

In the annual Ventura Stake Conference of January 1992, I had the temerity to raise my hand opposing sustaining the First Presidency and the local stake presidency. Mine was the only hand so raised in that audience of 5,000.I had become aware of an official policy of harrassment of the Mormon intellectual community in terms of intimidating the leaders of Dialogue, Sunstone and other independant publlications, which I could not by any stretch of my imagination support in good conscience. For me there was no alternative. I was warned by a good friend that I would be excommunicated, but I didn’t believe him. “After all”, I answered, “this is not like the Soviet Union.” Or is it? They sustained their leaders in a similar way–and also treated their intellectuals with the same intimidating attitudes as does Salt Lake.

It turned out that the warning was not baseless. I was called to appear before the stake presidency and high council, and for six gruelling hours stood my ground before a KGB-like interrogation. You think that an exaggeration? Take a look at my Amazon.com review of British historian David Stafford’s recent book Spies Beneath Berlin. I know something about the KGB and how they work. Then compare their techniques to the Ventura stake president’s methods in my case. (BTW, the stake president was also the Ventura County Deputy Sheriff.)

A record of these procedeeings can be found in the U of Utah Special Collections library, as well as on my website. They are also now used by the Church, to my surprise and puzzlement. These proceedings were recorded by one of my best friends, who was allowed to sit with me as support. I could not have asked for a better friend. He was a professional at recording such events and began doing so when he realized how the meeting was progressilng. The stake president was unaware that a separate, independant record was being made. It looks like the Church now prefers my friend’s account over that of the stake clerk for that event. It was sent to Church Headquarters by Lavina Fielding Anderson. Can you figure?!! How anyone in ecclesiastical office can defend such behavior is beyond me. It needs to be brought into the light, so that the members of the Church can clearly see what goes on in the shadows of such meetings.

We must have the courage to live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Zhenya/Eugene says:

We must have the courage to live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.

I respond:

There are situations in which it takes *real* courage to “live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.” However, this shouldn’t be necessary in a church setting. After all, churches, including the LDS church, only have such authority over us as we are willing to grant them.
ISTM that the conduct of your stake presidency and high council was rather reprehensible. They seem to have forgotten that the LDS church is an all-volunteer organization. Nobody can be forced to follow the dictates of ecclesiastical leaders, and to attempt to do so will ultimately result in failure.
FWIW, I was one of those who was unafraid of how I was seen. It was utterly confusing to stake and local authorities when I responded to their questions that the answer was “none of their business.”
Dan Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 2:07 PM
Slow down, guys! Let’s look at the blog thread we’re in here. Rory makes a terrific statement reminding us about responsibility in how we represent ourselves and ideas (”careful, respectful dialogue”), that Sunstone is primarily a constructive endeavor, that it’s important to remember the blog’s comment policy about respect for others and what they hold sacred—then we get a post about a Church president being the last “legitimate” prophet and a story that invokes KGB-like tactics? Perhaps these are statements that you’d ultimately be able to defend, but I can’t sustain the direction this thread is headed. So please note my hand raised in opposition.

I do think the McMurrin story is in Prince’s McKay biography. I thought of that when I posted earlier but didn’t/still don’t have a copy nearby to double check and find the page number.
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 2:18 PM
Hey Preston, I’m obviously older than you, since I don’t know what ISTM or FWIW means.
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 2:20 PM
Sorry Dan, but let’s not end up being a bunch of wimps.
Dan Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 2:59 PM
Wimpy? Just noting the irony of “last legit” and KGB references appearing in this particular thread which is about careful, reasoned, constructive conversation. I’m not trying to excommunicate anyone, or any particular topics, just issuing my objection in the same manner you felt you couldn’t support what was happening back in 1992.

You said, “We must have the courage to live transparent lives and be unafraid of how we are seen.” I’m simply noting how this struck me and I’m not afraid to be seen saying it.

Cheers!
Dan
Rory Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 3:29 PM
I’m with Dan on this one – and his response is more tempered than my initial reaction.

I’ll be frank and “transparent” – I think Sunstone is better when the discussion includes individuals from all camps – active/inactive/non, orthodox/heterodox, LDS/CoC, etc. That is the reason for my post advocating an awareness of tone. Again, not censorship. Tone.

There are certainly different ways to say the same thing. Using inflammatory diction tends to marginalize the discussion, and the forum is thus diminished.
John Remy Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 3:57 PM
I agree with the above comment: getting personal/rude can drive potential contributors away from the conversation (or at least divert it from its original path) and could be considered a type of censorship.

Rory, the restriction that concerns me the most is the one that you highlight in your post:

posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.

First of all, respect and sanctity are both highly subjective. Many members extend the blanket of the sacred to cover aspects of Church culture. It would be impossible to create an environment in which every element that was sacred to every Mormon were respected. I think that Sunstone attempts to feel out what is an viable balance between what is not offensive to the majority of its readers and participants while still allowing for a greater freedom of expression than is allowed in typical LDS venues. It’s difficult to satisfy everyone. And like it or not, Sunstone offends Mormons regularly (many by its very existence).

I take inspiration from the old stories of the Zen monk who, after his priestly companion acknowledged that a statue of the Buddha was just wood, began chopping it up for the fire, and after his hapless friend acquiesced that there was nothing sacred about the paper on which some scriptures were written, used it to wipe his butt. Our sacred cows need to be slaughtered on occasion, or at least tipped. I believe that we should be on guard against sanctifying too much–it is possible that we will find that at the root of at least some of the sanctification is the deliberate attempt to protect something from well-deserved criticism.
Rory Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 4:08 PM
John,

Fair enough – I would only counter that respect for someone’s beliefs does not equate to placing a discussion or even strong contention about those beliefs off limits. It does dictate a certain decorum to facilitate mutual communication. Such is the only manner I see to be faithful to the ideal of “faith seeking understanding.”
I confess this is a very fuzzy line, and it is certainly a qualitative judgement.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 5:12 PM
Rory, (with parenthetic references for Zhenya/Eugene)

ISTM (”it seems to me”) that the line isn’t all that “fuzzy.” I can clearly see that there is a difference between saying, “I think that your beliefs are mistaken” and saying, “your beliefs are stupid,” or, “only an idiot would believe that.” FWIW (”for what it’s worth”), I also believe that one can spell out the reasons why one believes that other beliefs are wrong without being rude or offensive.
The problem with Mormon culture, in my experience, is that almost *any* disagreement is labeled as “contention” and is therefore to be avoided at all costs. I must confess that I never found a way to disagree with somebody in an LDS setting without causing at least one person to be upset. Perhaps it’s just my normally “contentious” behavior.
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 7:31 PM
Hey, guys, I accept Dan’s gentle chastening. You can see why I didn’t go into politics or public relations, eh? In so saying I hope we don’t swallow the camel of abuse and intimidation while straining at the gnat of “tone”. Did anyone bother to check out the facts I raised?

In my enthusiasm for David McKay, I forgot to add my admiration for Spencer Kimball. I remember back in 1975 when I first returned to the Church after a ten year absense, I found myself in an EQ meeting in Los Angeles stake where the SP was John Carmack, a prince of a man. (We used to have the most rousing discussions and debates!) Anyway, during the EQ meeting (I, newly baptised, had not yet had a “restoration of [all] blessings”–that wouldn’t come for another 5 years), I heard what I thought was the most dangerous statement that could be made in the Church: The EQ president casually said , “When it comes to matters of ultimate authority, the Prophet’s conscience supercedes our own.”

My reaction was an instanteneous and energetic “NO!!” . It shocked the guys in the meeting and I’m sure they wondered what in the world I was doing there. After I got home I wrote an impassioned letter to Pres. Kimball asking him to communicate to the Church about this issue. My distress was not that such a statement had been made. My distress was that no but me objected to it. .Whether or not Pres. Kimball ever received my letter, I was gratilfied months later when he delivered a conference address called >”Our Own Liahona––We each have a personal Liahona, our conscience, to unfailingly guid us through the wilderness and storms of life.”

Some of the brethren at the highest levels seem to have forgotten that counsel these days. Two years after this conference address, Pres. Kimball had the unprecidented courage to make a sea change in the Church’s direction regarding the priesthood.

I rest my case for the moment.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 8:31 PM
I once belonged to a forum that I valued very much at the time. I’m still grateful for the environment it provided for me to explore my religious angst. The forum had only one rule: and I quote:

“We encourage people to explore the limits of their personal belief, and to feel free to express that belief as they engage in mutually supportive dialogue with other members of the forum. However, opinions regarding sensitive issues such as religious preference, sexual orientation, political issues, etc. should always be couched as simply that, personal opinions, rather than as matters of fact. The line has been crossed when someone ceases saying, “This is what I believe,” and begins saying, “This is what YOU should believe.”

Admittedly, they didn’t always follow their own rules, but the rule was enough of a presence to make discussion very productive.

I try to follow this rule whenever I post. It’s really easy for me to tell my thoughts as if they were a matter of fact. It takes work for me to acknowledge that my thoughts are only a work in progress. I find that it stifles my ability to grow when I forget that important fact. It also seems to me that it stifles one’s ability to grow when one presents things in such a way that others feel like they can’t respond without looking stupid. You lose out on some valuable feedback.

It’s amazing the difference between (I’m using this example, because I know Eugene will take it the way I intend it), “How anyone in ecclesiastical office can defend such behavior is beyond me. It needs to be brought into the light, so that the members of the Church can clearly see what goes on in the shadows of such meetings,” and “I felt very betrayed by these men, I fear that other people have gone through the same thing. It’ s important to me to find these people and their stories so that we can start sharing them.” If you put it the second way, it allows the reader to respond with, “Gee, Eugene, I can see why that caused you so much pain, how has your interpretation of those events informed your life? Are there other ways to approach them?” And then we can find out more about Eugene, and Eugene can find out more about himself, instead of starting into an argument about whether Chuch courts are conducted like KGB interrogations.

When all is said and done, I think the most important thing we can do is help each other tell our stories, and learn to reinterpret them as our lives go on, rather than reinforce principles.
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 8:40 PM
Well said, Stephen! I am trying to return as a “changed bee”.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 9:41 PM
Zhenya/Eugene recalls:

Anyway, during the EQ meeting (I, newly baptised, had not yet had a ?¢Ç¨?ìrestoration of [all] blessings?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äúthat wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t come for another 5 years), I heard what I thought was the most dangerous statement that could be made in the Church: The EQ president casually said , ?¢Ç¨?ìWhen it comes to matters of ultimate authority, the Prophet?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s conscience supercedes our own.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I am reminded:

Back in the 1960s, I was living in a ward in Oklahoma. In a conversation with the full-time missionaries assigned to that ward I stated that the highest authority to which one must answer in this life or the next is one’s own conscience. Judging from their horrified response I would have thought that I had just stated the ultimate heresy. However, I believed it then, and I believe it now. Perhaps that’s a major reason why I’m no longer a member of the LDS church. Perhaps it’s just a matter of faulty memory, but istm that following one’s conscience was something I had grown up believing. Now, it appears that “Follow The Brethren” has become the dominant message. But, judging from the responses of others on this subject, the two should not have to be mutually exclusive. But, in my experience, they have become that way.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 9:52 PM
I have to admit, Preston, that I feel much the same way you do. Right after the passage about intelligent obedience there was another passage that said something like, “If a prophet tells me that a principle I have accepted is wrong, I’ll drop it immediately without question.” The guys in my class thought the two went hand in hand: simply, intelligent obedience is unquestoining obedience.

The most charitable interpretation I can give this is that the manual is presenting us with a paradox. That’s the job of religion right? To help us approach paradoxes? And isn’t it always most constructive to dwell in the most tension filled area of the paradox, rather than to defuse it?

What does one start to think, when one is presented on one hand with intelligent obedience and on the other with unquestioning obedience?
jana Says:
October 12th, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Amen and thank you JohnD. Thanks for MormonStories and thanks for listening (and thanks for your cool wife, too).
Zhenya/Eugene/Five Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 4:01 AM
Stephen and Preston, it is great of you two to hold the tension and to illuminate the paradox of this culture of ours. Allow me join you in the tension. It feels loaded with potential meaning to me.

It is very early in the morning and I have been awakened by my five-year-old self, who has just asked me an important question. “Why doesn’t my mama believe me?”

Five’s question brought to mind a long ago dream (March 1966) that I had on the eve of beginning a professional Jungian analysis. You understand that when one makes such a commitment to analysis, it is not unusual to have such a preliminary dream. This gives the analyst a map of the territory the the client’s unconscious wishes to explore and bring to light. One of the images in the dream was that of a small boy standing in a wind-swept desert,with huge dark storm clouds overhead. He is alone and holding onto a rope that goes into the dark clouds, not knowing what he is holding onto, but wondering why his mother does not believe him.

So, I am adding this self-aspect child to my blog name. I’ll call him “Five”. And, I assure him that the Zhenya part of me is listening to him very carefully these days. It is this child self-aspect who has tall, smiling, robed friends who often visit him to keep him company and to comfort him.

An idea ocurred to me after recalling this old dream. It has to do with how we might share our dreams with each other. In another blog stream some days ago, Stephen jumped in with a couple of dreams that seemed to me to be important for him. But the discussion waned. Dreams don’t wane. If any who are reading this are interested in exploring this idea, please email me at enk33@losalamos.com. Perhaps it could become a blog subject to present to Sunstone. If that doesn’t seem appropriate, perhaps we could brainstorm other alternatives.
Zhenya/Eugene/Five Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 4:49 AM
I’m obviously way behind. “Mormon stories” is the very idea that makes the most sense to me. And only now do I learn there has been a blog site of that title? Let us not lose our true listeners–there are so few. Will someone please tell me more about what I’ve just missed?
Stephen Carter Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 8:31 AM
Click here
John Dehlin Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 10:54 AM
Hey Stephen and Jana,

Thanks so much for your kind words. I feel like I’m leaving an internal organ behind, but I gotta do this.

Knowing that maybe I helped things a bit really does deaden the sting.

And I really do look forward to seeing what grows out of the fertile soil we’ve all been tending……
Stephen Carter Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Hopefully the soil is fertile not just because it’s full of crap.
Matt Thurston Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 12:01 PM
Well said, Stephen.

The end of Mormon Stories is definitely something to mourn. I’ve been wearing black all week. As I told John, “Why didn’t you take on a partner or two!?!?! I knew you would burn out!?!?!” Aaaahhh!

John and I parked our cars in the Sheraton parking lot for the 2005 Sunstone Symposium at about the same time. For each of us it was our first SSS. We struck up a conversation on the way into the hotel. He was the first Sunstoner I met; and I was his (I think). That Sunstone Symposium galvanized us both, but I was absolutely shocked(!!!) six or seven months later to see that he had created Mormon Stories, not just a blog, but a resource for important podcasts, etc. It also appeared that he already pretty much knew everyone there was to know in Mormon Intellectual circles. In any case, I was amazed… like John, I wanted to make a difference, but was too timid and unsure of myself to do anything… when I saw Mormon Stories, I thought, “How in the world did John do all of this? What, did he just start calling people up and asking to interview them?” Pretty much, I guess. The speed and degree to which John blew through town and made a difference is pretty impressive. The Bloggernacle is a great place, and there are a ton of people who have made important contributions, but no one has spoken to as diverse an audience, from TBMs to EXs, and with as open and friendly and inclusive an attitude as John. To be sure, Mormon Stories wasn’t for everyone, but with its demise I think it leaves a pretty big hole in the Bloggernacle, and in the greater Mormon Internet World in general.

R.I.P. Mormon Stories, 2005-2006.
Matt Thurston Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 12:02 PM
Zhenya/Eugene/Five… you change aliases faster than Jennifer Garner!
Preston Bissell Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 12:13 PM
Stephen asks:

What does one start to think, when one is presented on one hand with intelligent obedience and on the other with unquestioning obedience?

I respond:

This is a no-brainer for me: I simply reject unquestioning obedience out-of-hand. It never was an option for me. *Everything* is subject to question. IMNSHO, the very instant that one stops questioning, one has surrendered his/her agency. There may be non-ecclesiastical instances where one is obligated to obey the dictates of others, such as in a place of employment. (Although, one always has the option of quitting.) But, istm that in a church setting there is *never* a time when one can be forced to obey “authority.” Although, full-time missionaries might differ with me as far as their situation is concerned.
RoastedTomatoes Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 3:49 PM
I miss Mormon Stories. Tears in my root beer!
Zhenya/Eugene/Five Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 4:33 PM
Matt, those changes aren’t aliases–they’re growth ring morphs. That’s what you-all get by really getting to me where I live at my inner roots! I know that doesn’t make any sense, but, Hey, most who really know me realize I’m a bit off–but they love me anyway. For that I’m grateful. It’s the only thing that makes real sense.
Zhenya/Eugene/Five Says:
October 13th, 2006 at 10:59 PM
Everybody, before this thread dies, I want to point out that there again have been no feminine voices. Why? I’m wondering if it’s because your policy for being “nice” disallows an emotional response that might trouble someone. And that constriction forces things to become boring or hollow. For goodness sake, let’s not trouble anybody! Dan would understand when I say we seem to be trapped in “flatland” here in this thread, as well as in so many others.

When I dared to mention ecclesiastical bullies (KGB-like behavior) earlier in this string of responses, I failed to mention that there is no question in my mind that the SP in question was being true to his personal conscience. There is the paradox, Stephen. When faced with abuse or intimidation in contests of conscience, how can we face it “nicely” or appropriately? Shall we hide? Deny? Ignore?

The best response to this question that I can think of is from Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago, where he says: If the beast who sleeps in man could be held down by threats?¢Ç¨Äùany kind of threat, whether of jail or of retribution after death?¢Ç¨Äùthen the highest emblem of humanity would be the lion tamer in the circus with his whip, not the prophet who sacrificed himself. But, don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t you see, this is just the point?¢Ç¨Äùwhat has for centuries raised man above the beast is not the cudgel but an inward music: the irresistible power of unarmed truth, the powerful attraction of its example.

I submit that we each have a prophetic voice within ourselves. Let us persist with “unarmed truth”, having lost our fear of judgment or rejection. I dare say well intentioned bullies can be stopped or transformed when the bullied stand tall and find new, creative ways to respond. I hope that’s an eventual outcome of these exchanges.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 9:15 AM
Zhenya says:

I submit that we each have a prophetic voice within ourselves. Let us persist with ?¢Ç¨?ìunarmed truth?¢Ç¨¬ù, having lost our fear of judgment or rejection. I dare say well intentioned bullies can be stopped or transformed when the bullied stand tall and find new, creative ways to respond. I hope that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s an eventual outcome of these exchanges.

I respond:

Actually, even though I don’t consider Joseph Smith to be a “prophet” in the way many Mormons do, I do think that he had insights into this problem that seem to be ignored in the contemporary church. My favorite “scripture”, during my believing days, was D&C 121:39. Even though I now doubt the divine origins of that verse, it still resonates as being an extraordinarily accurate insight into the human condition.
ISTM that those to whom you refer as “bullies” are classic examples of this principle. And, the “creative way to respond” would be to remind them of this verse. And, if that fails, simply refer to the next two verses.
Let me repeat; churches are all-volunteer organizations. Churches, and their leaders, have only such authority as a person is willing to grant them. If you are willing to reject the idea that an ecclesiastical leader has any “authority” over your personal actions/choices, then that person has not got that authority. “Bullies” will always exist. We cannot change that. What we can, and should change, is the way in which we react to them.
ZhE5 Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 10:10 AM
Thank you for that distilization, Preston. I was confident you’d hear and respond in a wise way.

You might be interested in an on-going dialogue I’m getting ready to have with “Brother Joseph”. If you are willing to enter them, I’d welcome you and be pleased. They will soon appear on my blog on our family website: http://www.kovalenko.org.

[Matt may note again the change in my "aliias". I'm just trying to get down to a manageable--abbreviated--form: the Zh = Zhenya for my introverted, interior, emotional self; E = Eugene for my extroverted, exterior, rational self; 5 = Five, for my five year old self--to whom I've only begun to listen more carefully.]
Rob Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Lst December John recorded phone interviews with Mike RIchan and I on the history and doctrines of Reform Mormomisn. The questions that John asked us, his attitude, etc. were so refreshing! Here was a gentleman who truly grasped Mormonism in its broadest sense. Unfortnately, some technical problems with the conference call system used in recording the interview rendered the final product unusable. John was quick to assure us that he wanted to re-record the interview. Alas “Mormon Stories” is no more. Tthose familiar with these outstanding pod-casts do indeed have something ovr which to mourn!
Rory Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 9:38 PM
Eugene, you write:

Everybody, before this thread dies, I want to point out that there again have been no feminine voices. Why? I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wondering if it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s because your policy for being ?¢Ç¨?ìnice?¢Ç¨¬ù disallows an emotional response that might trouble someone.

Not at all. And it isn’t a policy of being “nice”, it’s a policy of not employing language that serves to shut the discussion down through exaggeration, hyperbole, or drama. The ideal is a forum of communication that Stephen effectively describes above.

You can have honesty and transparency and still maintain a level of true communication through moderation. You cannot, however, expect other voices to join the conversation if you insist on a scorched earth policy of communication.

You go on to say:

Shall we hide? Deny? Ignore?

Please read this thread again, as well as the responses. This is not a request to hide, deny, or ignore. It is not a request for censorship. It is a request to communicate the problems (or successes) in a manner that invites shared communication and a manner that does not shut the door on mutual understanding.

Again, if you feel that this policy is only about being nice and that to be honest and transparent you must employ language that serves to alienate or provoke, then you will not see new voices join the conversation. As such, this forum will suffer from marginalization.
ZhE5 Says:
October 14th, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Well said, but why no female voices?
ZhE5 Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Rory, re #27, I did review this thread again as you asked–and still come back to my question: why no female voices? It is clear you gave my posting some significant consideration. I’ll try another tack.

You addressed me correctly as “Eugene”, my rational self-aspect, but my “Five” self-aspect felt spanked. This troubled me for a while. Usually, when I’m troubled like that, whether by someone or some circumstance and can’t figure out why, I will have a dream that gives me a place to focus on for rebalancing inner work.

This time, the balancing response came from an unexpected quarter not 20 minutes after your post. It came from one of Gene England’s daughters in reply to my having scanned and sent copies of all Gene’s letters to me over the years we knew each other. This was in support of the Eugene England Memorial project that the family has created. Gene and I first became acquainted at the U of Utah in 1961. We formed a five-man “dialogue” study group back then to wrestle with issues that we couldn’t discuss elsewhere. I was the EQ instructor in one of the student wards and Gene was a new arrival (I think he had just come back to school after having finished his tour as an officer in the US Air Force.) In any case, this particular Sunday of our first meeting, I had posted on the blackboard the words: “Brothers, are we cowards in our faith?” to evoke some life into a typically boring setting. You can imagine the kind of energy that came up to keep us all awake those Sunday mornings. Yes?

In her reply Gene’s daughter wrote: “I love dreams and remember my dad talking about how you valued dreamwork. I remember my dad sharing his dream about being judged by the Twelve and using his military service in his defense. Since my dad’s death I have had countless dreams where my dad appears. When he was dying I made him promise to haunt me in my dreams. He has kept his promise.”

That’s what’s missing, brother Rory. This blog thread seems stuck in our heads. It feels more concerned with “tone” than with “attitude.” In other posts I have mentioned the word “beloving” and have to keep reminding myself of the last, most important question I ask in my dreamwork workshops and seminars: “Are you beloving to all the beings and characters in this dream scene?”

I had to ask myself this same question when applied to my attitude towards you and your posting. The first thing that came to mind was something Lincoln is reported to have said: “There’s a man I don’t like. I’d better get to know him.” He knew the risks of projection! The next thing I thought of was a recent dream I’d had about the local SP here in Los Alamos. He and I have been corresponding for about 18 months since he came over to me at a public concert and invited me to come see him should I ever want to talk. I accepted his invitation a few weeks later and then wrote a poem about our encounter: “Trying the Church Before the Family.” That began a lively process, which inspired me to learn about blogs. My first blog was a venting over my sense of feeling violated by this man’s interviewing methods. It took me a while to understand. Now, many months later, I finally had a dream that layed it all out for me.

I’m tempted to put the dream here, but will restrain myself. If others are interested I’m willing to share it, along with its dreamage–a reworking of the dream to a transformative pattern. I call it “The Church of the Holy Restaurant.”

Back to you, Rory. After reflecting on Lincoln’s remark, I looked up your bio and got to know you a bit better. I’m glad you are science oriented, besides busines. I’m pleased to learn about your little family and wondered at the ages of your four offspring. I was also pleased to learn that you are obviously computer literate! There are other attractive elements there to explore–one day, perhaps. After all, the Sunstone community is just that: a community. As Dan once expressed in an editorial a couple of years back, “The Church can be a true home.” I responded, “I hope by that you mean the greater community of Christ” (rather than ecclesiastical scaffolding).

When we bring dreams into the equation, the “flatland” boredome of this blog thread disappears. How about we figure out a way to invite dreams on a regular basis? That’s the quickest and surest way to get to and share our inner truth with each other in true community than I can conceive of.

One last thing. It’s a technical question: How do you capture quotes to place in a little grey box in a posting? Do I need additional software?

Fraternal regards,
Eugene/Five
John Remy Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 5:56 PM
Well said, but why no female voices?

I think there are no female voices (or additional male ones) because this thread is dominated by 2-4 people. I’m not placing a value judgment on this–some conversations are that way. I’m very interested in the subject matter, but it’s clear that Preston and Zhenya in particular have set the tone and focus for this conversation in a way that has discouraged me from participating, and possibly others.
Preston Bissell Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 6:46 PM
John Remy says:

I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m very interested in the subject matter, but it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s clear that Preston and Zhenya in particular have set the tone and focus for this conversation in a way that has discouraged me from participating, and possibly others.

I reply:

I’m sorry that has happened. That certainly wasn’t my intent. However, your decision not to participate is yours, and yours alone. Please don’t blame others for your failure to participate. Quite honestly, I find your statement verges on being outright rude.
That said, I shall refrain from commenting further on this, or any other thread on this forum. I know when I’m not welcome.
ZhE5 Says:
October 15th, 2006 at 8:18 PM
Preston, send me your email address to enk33@losalamos.com
John Remy Says:
October 16th, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Preston, I apologize for giving offense. I didn’t intend for the comment to be harsh. I tried to point out that I wasn’t making a value judgment–we need to have some conversations where others sit on the sidelines and listen. A conversation dominated by several strong voices isn’t by default a bad one–just one that’s hard to squeeze into, and that was my answer to Zhenya’s earnest question.

Just so my comment isn’t a total digression: I wonder what looking at this thread as a whole can tell us about Rory’s initial query above about the voices and responsibility in the Sunstone community?
KF Says:
October 16th, 2006 at 1:34 PM
John Dehlin seems to be willing to come out of retirement if we decide to make it happen. Please Sustain Mormon Stories by clicking this link here: http://www.sustaind.org/story/Help-Save-Mormon-Stories-from-Retirement-1/ so we can get the word out. Thanks!
Rory Says:
October 16th, 2006 at 3:00 PM
Preston – I took John’s comment to be more a response to why this thread seemed to have few respondents, not a comment on you. FWIW, you’ve made some very valuable and reasoned points here, I hope you stay.

Besides, Eugene/Zhenya/Five has already told me that I’m a man he doesn’t like, and I think I’ll stick around.

We dropped what seems to be a good critique of the comment policy when John writes:

Rory, the restriction that concerns me the most is the one that you highlight in your post:

posts and comments must be respectful of all people and the ideas and beliefs they hold sacred.

First of all, respect and sanctity are both highly subjective. Many members extend the blanket of the sacred to cover aspects of Church culture. It would be impossible to create an environment in which every element that was sacred to every Mormon were respected.

If we need to clarify this, we can certainly do it. The point of this is not to label the discussion of any particular belief off limits, but rather to approach them with a certain respect toward the holder of those beliefs. For example, discussions about the effect of the endowment from a personal perspective is one thing – publishing the text is quite another. I think we generally know the line, but distilling that into a succinct comment policy can be challenging. Preston nailed it when he highlighted the difference between “that belief is something I can’t subscribe to” and “you’re an idiot for believing that.”

Finally, I want to re-emphasize that I am not pushing for topics to be off-limits, but only for participants to understand that there is a certain requirement for respectful and civil discourse when conducted in Sunstone’s forums.

I’ll be honest, I’m stunned that this posting has as many comments as it does. I expected 1, maybe 2, but it took on a life of its own.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 16th, 2006 at 9:45 PM
I think one of the difficulties of finding the “voice” of this blog is that it is in many ways an institutional blog. The people who are in charge are worried about how the blog is perceived and how that perception will affect the rest of the organization. And I think they’re right in feeling that way.

Thus I tend to be careful in what I say, and that my caution tends to dull my comments and take the edge off my passion.
ZhE5 Says:
October 17th, 2006 at 5:55 AM
Ah, Stephen! For you to have allowed the “edge” of your passion to be dulled is a perfect example of my earlier complaint of the difference between “tone” and “attitude”. Thank you for stepping in. It is an illustration of how a “dominating” attitude can intimidate one of “partnering”. In our society (if not our culture) thinking prevails, often to the detriment of feelling. That is a dominating attitude, and I suspect it is at the root of why our women stay silent. In a “partnering” attitude feeling are valued equally (not more so) with thinking. Reason and emotion are in a horizontal relationship, rather than a vertical (hierarchical) one where one is “above” the other. Does this make sense to you? We need a better balance between these two ways of making decisions, don’t you think? Add a little courage to this equation and maybe something better will emerge.
diamond Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 5:26 PM
John, thanks very much, sincerely. I have felt nourished by listening to your approach. You seem to have understood that only taking the time to understand actually helps people. I pray there might be a way for you to continue…and I’m sure you’ll find it. You know that this will always be a part of you, a part that you will need to share. It will not rest, and ought not to. I look forward to your third comeback. Don’t keep me waiting for too long!
Rick Says:
October 19th, 2006 at 10:31 PM
I do think that we have a responsibility to present ourselves civilly, and I can empathize with any concern that the board or editors might feel about how this blog is perceived by the church……but if we temper things too much than we’re not too different from the stifling mainstream culture that many of us are trying to escape—even if temporarily.

I’ve had a hard time really participating here because it seems very boxed in at times. Only “permabloggers” are alowed to start threads, and even then with some restrictions. Criticism is sometimes shot down as quickly here as it is in my Elder’s Quorum.

Rory, I can understand your affection for Sunstone, particularly as you move up in its organization, but if this blog is about institutional representation rather than free and frank exchange, I don’t know how meaningful it really is.

If we do things the other way, where discussion is more spontaneous and less limited, there will surely be offensive things, but I think there is a sort of self-regulating herd instinct in most chat groups anyway, so trolling is often self-corrected.
Cameron Kraus Says:
October 24th, 2006 at 6:36 AM
This question is for Dan Vogel:

Ever since I started reading your work I have wonder why you are still so interested in Mormon studies. You seem to write so much about LDS history, philosophy, culture, etc. and have been at it for years and years. I can understand a believer who dedicates all their intellectual power to this one topic. For them they derive purpose, value, identity and growth from this religion. Why not focus your life?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s energy on it?!? I can also understand the non-believer who finds mormon issues interesting and engaging, for a time. But I guess I can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t understand why someone of your obvious intellectual prowess and natural writing ability is still so solely committed to a subject matter as esoteric as mormonism. I mean, you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re the world expert on how Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God. If you like it you like it, but scrolling through this post and seeing the sheer amount of mental energy you commit to things like this makes me hesitant to consider what you say as anything other than fanatical.
Rick Jepson Says:
October 24th, 2006 at 11:46 AM
Cameron,

I’m obsessed with ischemic strokes that happen in the middle cerebral artery of the right hemisphere of the brain. I think about it all day. I stay up late downloading journal articles. I talk about it to anyone willing to listen. I subject every patient I can get my hands on to endless tests.

So, if I tell you that a patient I had last week has extinctive and peripersonal visuospatial neglect but not motor, far space, or representational or personal neglect…….would you be hesitant to consider what I say as anything other than fanatical?

Many people don’t choose the bug that bites them….if someone gets bitten by the Joseph Smith bug, who am i to question why? After all, there’s really no good reason for me to have been bitten by the R-CVA bug, but here I am.

It might be more productive to discuss things point by point instead of disregarding a person’s whole body of contributions just because they’re more excited about it than you or I.
Steve M. Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 9:42 AM
I’ve thought about the prospect of Service Missions, and I really think it would be a wonderful program. I wouldn’t be at all surprise if the Church institutes such a program some time in the future.

I know a number of people who have traveled to China as volunteers to teach English, for periods ranging from a few months to a year. I’ve thought, why doesn’t the Church send service missionaries to do the same thing? I think we do send some on service missions, mostly elderly couples, but why not get young singles, or even young marrieds, involved? I think it would be wonderful to spend a summer with my wife doing some kind of service abroad on behalf of the Church.

I think such a program would do a lot for goodwill, it would probably get more people serving who wouldn’t have served a traditional proselyting mission, and it would help us fulfill our Christian mission.
Nick Literski Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:04 AM
The “Raising the Bar” issue would still arise with service missions, if they were expanded in the way you suggest. The new missionary standards are not just about worthiness. They are also about weight. Yes, I ‘ve heard the outright denials that there are any height/weight requirements. I served as a stake executive secretary, however, and the stake president had an actual chart, provided to him by church headquarters, which showed the limits. Exceptions to those limits were on a case-by-case basis, but had to be justified by factors such as VERY serious athletic involvement, etc.

This has nothing to do with worthiness or ability to serve. It has everything to do with IMAGE, and public relations. When the church made the most recent Joseph Smith movie, they conveniently saw to it that overweight volunteer extras were cast as the “bad guys” (yes, I’m one of the Missouri mobbers). Not one overweight person was cast as one of the Mormons, despite the fact that Willard Richards weighed about 400 pounds during the era being portrayed. Someone in SLC has decided that “fat = bad public image,” and it is showing up in a variety of circumstances.

The result? I know of one young man, the son of a recent/former stake president, who is a real gem. He shows kindness and compassion to those around him. He lives the standards of the church. He has been denied the opportunity to go on a mission, however, because he is overweight, and has not succeeded in rapidly dropping enough pounds. He not only misses that opportunity to serve and grow, but his church record now portrays him as one of those “unfaithful” men who never answered the call to serve. There is still a social stigma in the church toward those men who do not serve missions, and it’s not likely to change any time soon.

I actually had some experience with this. Despite the fact that I served an honorable mission, a whole chain of ward clerks neglected (despite several reminders) to record that fact on my church membership record. Therefore, each time I entered a new ward, the record portrayed me as a man who had been a member since the age of 13, but had not bothered to serve a mission. It was finally corrected after one bishop made a rather blunt statement about me “not having served,” which demonstrated his consequent judgment.

I don’t have to be a prophet to predict that many young men will go inactive in the church because they were denied the opportunity to serve missions–through no current worthiness issue–and felt the resulting sting of disapproval.
Rory Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Steve M:

Short term stints are actually a great idea. A summer spent on sabbatical serving on a specific project, or even a few weeks in a relatively close area. Another organization that does this is Global Volunteers.

Nick:

Whoa – I must be way out of the loop, because this is the first I have heard of any weight guidelines. Is it really a deal breaker? Are they based on BMI? Is it different for Elders/Sisters? I’d chalk this up to legend, but I’ve known you long enough not to dismiss it. Any details?
Nick Literski Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 11:51 AM
Rory,
It’s not legend. I saw the chart, though I didn’t get a chance to examine it in great detail. I also saw and heard the stake president explain to the presidency that he had strict instruction that the chart NOT to be shared outside stake presidents and bishops (in other words, the persons responsible for interviewing and submitting papers). It was a chart based on height vs. weight, though that naturally takes BMI into consideration, doesn’t it? I honestly don’t recall whether it was different for males vs. females. This was all phrased in the sense of being able to handle the “physical demands” of a mission.

The training emphasis connected with this was that bishops should be working with the young men in their wards, and if a young man was getting overweight, he should be encouraged to lose weight so that he could be “prepared to serve” when the time came for his mission. The sad part, of course, was that this came with no warning to young men who were already close to mission age when the “guidelines” came out. As with any of the other “Raising the Bar” issues, any exceptions have to be specifically argued by the stake president, and waivers are not handed out lightly.

As for the corrollary example I gave regarding the Joseph Smith movie, they filmed a good portion of it in Illinois, where I was living at the time. They recruited local extras. In fact, they recruited a non-LDS group of period re-enactors to add to the Missouri mobbers, and specifically encouraged them to bring their tobacco, if they used it (’cause you know, if they chewed on screen, you’d KNOW they were the bad guys)! All of the Missouri mob scenes were filmed near New Salem, Illinois, and we “fat guys” were perfectly welcome to play the “bad guys.” Then the crew came to Nauvoo to film scenes which involved more of the early Mormons. The casting recruiters openly stated that they only had costumes up to size 14 for women, and that they could not use overweight men. (Interestingly, nearly all the local girls and women who were hired as extras had long, blonde hair.) They made some weak comment about how people weren’t overweight in the subject time period, but as I said, Willard Richards was about 400 pounds in the Nauvoo era.

I appreciate that last comment of yours, Rory. I really do try not to go off half-cocked.
Matt Thurston Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 12:37 PM
The weight restriction is a surprise to me too. Is this some kind of new restriction? There were a couple of Elders in my mission pushing 300, and in Taiwan, 300 looks like 400.

I’d describe my mission the same way Rory described his — don’t regret a thing, but wouldn’t do it again. Actually, I have a recurring dream (nightmare?) that I have been called on a second mission and can’t get out of it. The details are hazy, but the feelings (dread, anxiety, doom) are the same… I think, “but I’ve got my job, my wife and kids… I can’t do this!” which is overcome by some invisible force or expectation that I can’t not do it. Strange.

Love the service mission idea and have thought about it a lot. Wish our current two-year missions could be divided in two, one year proselyting, one year servicing. Considering the talent, dedication, numbers, $$$, of the members of the Church, such a project really could move mountains. However, we seem to have our attention and resources fully engaged in a war against “the adversary” (sin in the form of fornication, adultery, homosexuality, gambling, pornography, drinking/drugs, and other “last days” evils). I’m not suggesting one or two of those aren’t worth fighting, but oh that we could turn our attention and resources into fighting the adversary in the form of poverty, third-world and inner city education, disease, civil rights, child welfare, and so on…

How many converts would we win if such were our focus?
Nick Literski Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Matt,
The weight restriction is “new” in the sense that it went in at the same time they “rose the bar,” which is what, two years ago now? Maybe three?

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of which “adversaries” the church seems intent on fighting. When the First Presidency had their anti-marriage-equality letter read over pulpits two weeks in a row, that was unprecedented, so far as I know. One of my first thoughts was how nice it would be if they found poverty, abuse, etc. important enough to send doubled calls to action.

As an interesting aside, some of these “service missions” have unfortunate side effects. There are some administrators in the church (such as the temple president in Nauvoo) who believe that “missionaries” and “volunteers” should replace church employees so far as possible. This saves the church money, but it also results in unemployment for people who are trying to raise families.
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 2:10 PM
I wonder what my recent dream about my local stake president means, in the terms of the weight issue you folks (Matt, Nick and Rory) are discussing?

This local SP had originally approached me almost two years ago at a public performance of the Messiah, where his wife was the orchestra’s concert master. My wife and I were there as previous guest soloists. The SP, knowing I had been excommunicated years earlier in another stake, came over to where we were seated and invited me to talk if I so chose.

Thus began a spirited dialogue plus email exchanges-until he recently threw up his hands and refused to write to me any more. He was not used to being challenged, but I was troubled by this sudden abandonment by what I’d thought was a good faith exchange.

Then, as usually happens when I’m faced with a situation I can’t figure out consciously, I had this dream, where my wife and I were to meet with the SP and his wife at a restaurant. We arrive before they and are shown to a pre-arranged table, which I am informed has been set up for disciplinary purposes. When the SP arrives with his wife, I see that she is OBESE (who looks nothing like his Concert Master wife). The dream continues and I deal with it in other standard ways that I’ve learned over the years.

But there is a message in this dream that I am not getting. Somehow there is something about overweight that purvades our culture and society at subterranean levels. I am plagued by this personally, as is much of my active LDS family. What do you suppose it could symbolize? Any ideas?

ENK
Dan Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 2:49 PM
Fun stuff to think about, Rory. Thanks!

FWIW, our SP had a young man in our ward lose fifty pounds before he let him put in his mission papers, but he also had another one save $1000 before he’d let him serve, as well. I figured he was just being uber-enthused about the bar-raising stuff. No idea there might be a chart, etc. Interesting!

ENK, sorry no idea what the obesity of the person in your dream could mean. I’ve always liked to think of my own heft as my just having a spirit so large that it was constantly urging me to eat enough M&Ms so it could fit in my body a bit more comfortably…. Think my rationalization machine is working a bit overtime?
Parker Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 6:47 PM
I’m not sure what strategy the Church will employ that might suscessfully overecome the “Mormons aren’t Christians” tag. But I have sometimes thought that it will require reducing, if not eliminating, the proselytizing of people who are members of Christian Churches. The alternative may very well be service based mission, which still would maintain the “education” componet designed to ground young men and women as faithful members.
Rick Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 7:17 PM
I get really, really sad when I think of all the actual work 50,000 young people could be doing instead of going door to door telling everyone that they’re unhappy for being in the wrong church. Since my mission, I’ve had a few great oportunities to do service and I’d take that over prosyltizing any day. I also think that we’d get stronger converts if people saw those shirts, nametags and ties out there practicing “true religion” instead of preaching.

My wife and I are returned missionaries, and we’re both greatful for our experience. But I don’t want my own kids to go on that kind of mission. I want them to serve. I pray that the church will have an expanded program for service missions by then. If not, I’ll encourage my own kids to go a different route.

just my $0.02
Rick Says:
October 25th, 2006 at 7:21 PM
also, the weight thing. When I was a missionary one of our elders got sent home for weighing too much. We couldn’t believe it. I’m already a pretty heavy guy…….and i’ll admit that on a few frustrating days I’d stop by the all-you-can-eat chinese buffet to try to “eat myself home.”
Zhenya/Eugene Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 5:38 AM
Dan and Rick,
There is surely a silent message in the heaft, isn’t there?. I sincerely believe we need to find it. Dan, I know you well enough by now to sense that in your case this is not an unconscious case of “inflation”, as I believe it might be in the case of my own inner SP’s wife–his emotional side??

When and if we can solve the inner truth of this societal and cultural issue, we will have made a HUGE (no pun intended) step in becoming free to be our true selves, living transparent lives and coming to true (versus pseudo, per Scott Peck) community.

ENK
McKay Curtis Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 7:32 AM
Rick,

You said,

“If not, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ll encourage my own kids to go a different route.”

What would you encourage your kids to do? College? Or is there some other service oriented opportunities that you would encourage them to consider?
John Mansfield Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 9:50 AM
From this September’s New Era (p. 33): “Just before his 19th birthday, Neil, then weighing about 400 pounds, learned he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d have to lose more than 120 pounds to drop to the recommended maximum weight for a missionary his height.” This isn’t being kept secret.
Stephen Carter Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 10:12 AM
I have a friend who was too big to go on a mission. So instead, she went to a little Alaskan village to teach school. She’s very good and makes a difference.

Plus – she gets paid!
Rory Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 11:00 AM
John M:

Thanks for the reference, it makes sense that it couldn’t be a secret if there are specific standards to be met. I just had never heard of this, and it surprised me.

I guess it’s been a while since I cracked open a New Era.
Nick Literski Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Let me guess, John. I’m betting the article went on to say that this young man had such a fervent desire to serve deity, that he went right to work, and lost even MORE than the 120 pounds required of him, and now he’s a super-missionary example of righteous devotion.

The underlying message, of course, would be that if you can’t seem to drop the weight, then you’re just not valiant enough. After all, didn’t they recently canonize that 11th commandment, “Thou shalt adhere to the weight standards admired by American society at your given time period”?
rick jepson Says:
October 26th, 2006 at 6:57 PM
Zhenya.

Huh?
Denae Says:
October 27th, 2006 at 7:49 PM
I don’t mean to de-rail the topic too much but my Catholic friend was talking to me today about various Mormon topics, Word of Wisdom, BYU, missionaries, etc. We specifically discussed the irony that we are told to not partake in a number of substances in order to keep our body clean and holy yet it seems just as bad if not worse to become grossly overweight. I’m not talking about everyone being super skinny, I’m just referring to being healthy.

Anyway, I love the idea of a service mission. Doing service work is to me the best way to set a Christ-like example and people are a lot more likely to listen to a “message” after you have fed them, etc.
Rick Jepson Says:
October 29th, 2006 at 11:22 AM
Denae,

There are many ironies in our adherance to the W.o.W. But equally ironic is the ridiculous notion that skinny means healthy. The world is full of unhealthy skinny people. I’ll never have a six pack: even at my very best i’ve got a ponch. But a LOT of people with a lower BMI than mine cant follow me up a mountain and sure cant hang with me on a mat.

And Zhenya, not sure why you’re comfortable psychoanalyzing me since we’ve never met. That’s quite a liberty to take. Anyway, drop me a line if you ever want to wrestle.
Rick Jepson Says:
October 29th, 2006 at 11:25 AM
McKay,

I don’t know what to suggest to my kids. If they want to prosyltize, they’re certainly welcome to. But I think there are better ways to help the world and better ways to grow up. There was another thread a little while ago about mormon moratoriums and this got explored a little. I happened to find myself on my mission, and so cherish the whole experience. But I think there are other ways to do it.
Zhenya Says:
October 29th, 2006 at 1:24 PM
Rick, re #18.

Obesity. What is it? Why is it? Maybe it can become a matter to be addressed sympathetically and lovingly, rather than as something to be embarrassed about or condemned. The Church missionary program has made it a disqualifying and often heartless issue, as discussed above.

Perhaps it is like a reoccuring dream that keeps coming up until one gets the message? Is it anything specific? Is is culturally connected? I don’t think it’s simply a lack of discipline or willpower. Or is every case unique?

I have a lot of active Mormon relatives that suffer with this condition. I think it is cultural issue, but I can’t figure it out. These relatives are are typically hard to talk to, because they are ashamed or embarrassed and go through meaningless motions to appologize for their condition. There are so many in the Church, as well as the society at large. They are another example of a vast, untapped potential.
Saijin Says:
October 30th, 2006 at 10:59 PM
I’ll take a stab at the meaning of the dream, E, intuitively and then with a dose of reasoning stirred in for good measure. Consider the following… She was overweight in the dream (in noted contrast to her actual physical appearance) in order to provide a message to you that she was the one uncomfortable with her husband’s communications with you and was the influence whereby all communication stopped. Obesity is sometimes a way we protect ourselves and comfort ourselves, from that which we fear addressing. It can be one way of hiding and escaping. Her fear of her husband communicating at great length with you would not be known to you, unless it were “revealed?” A good husband may be the head, but a good wife, as the neck, knows which way to make him turn. Just a thought.
Rick Jepson Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 10:07 AM
Again, I’m always stunned by people’s eagerness to psychoanalyze. Particularly when its (I assume) without credentials and its on an online forum with strangers.

What I’ve been trying to hint at in my last few posts….aparently not strongly enough…..is that a guy like me with a few extra pounds really, really, really isn’t interested in a bunch of people “taking a stab” at why he’s fat. In fact, it basically makes me want to take it to the mattress.

So. Maybe let’s get back to the subject of this thread.

: )
Eugene Says:
November 1st, 2006 at 9:03 PM
Saijin: Again, your insight into my dreams ring true. Thank you.

Rick: And thank you for breaking what appears to be an embarrassed silence from our Sunstone Blog audience by candidly expressing your feelings. Is your “mattress” for sleep or for wrestling? Either way, I’m pleased to address your concern for “credentials”.

First, about the subject of this thread, surely we are on to something really, really, really important!. We are considering a much more vast untapped potential not only of missed missionary opportunities for true service rather than the thin soup of proselyting, but of the untapped potential of our collective cultural interior–our feelings and our dreams, and our collective fear of expressing ourselves to each other, even if we are strangers. The fastest way I know to build true community is to share our dreams with each other. I know what I’m talking about.

Second, allow me to inform you that Saijin was an important helper in a company I was building over 14 years ago in Ventura, California, having to do with practical applications of dream work in business and industry, as well as in personal life. Until three weeks ago I had not had any contact with her since those exciting Ventura days. Then, out of the blue, she chased me down through my web site to tell me an interpretation of a dream I had been struggling to process for more than 40 years! Of all the dreams she could have chosen in looking at my “Memorable Dreams” URL section, she chose the one that was most important to me. After having been impressed to focus on that dream, she had awakened the next morning with an interpretation in her mind. So confident was she in its meaning that she had to contact me. That was amazing to me all by itself, but her interpretation rang so true in me that I, myself, was “stunned”. Furthermore, Saijin’s insight was identical to my wife’s, who had not bothered to tell me her own view when I shared it with her many years ago, because she thought it was so “obvious”. Well, it was not so obvious to me, until she (Saijiln) felt compelled to express it to me. Saijin knew from our having worked together, that I was perfectly capable of standing my own ground if her take didn’t ring true to me. She also knew (being familiar with my well-tested dream work process) that I discouraged interpreting the dreams of others. (My process looks at the dynamics of dreams, rather than their interpretation.)

Third, as far as my most recent dream that Saijin has “taken a stab at”, it was most appropriate. So appropriate. in fact, that I’m going to put down here for your inspection, should you be inclined to give it attention. I call it “The Church of the Holy Restaurant”. Note that the raw dream is given in regular type while the reworked part is in itallics.

The Church of the Holy Restaurant, (Reworked elements in itallics)

With Birgitta at a local restaurant waiting for Russ P [local SP] and his wife. We are seated at a small round table with white table cloth set in a certain way. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m informed that sometimes the setting is configured to indicate a disciplinary purpose. I ask if our table is so configured and am told that it is.

I ask that we be relocated to a table setting with a regular setting. Birgitta and I are led to another table nearby, which has such a regular setting.

Soon Russ and wife (who is obese UNLIKE his external wife) come in. I stand and cordially greet them both with a hand shake. Russ sits to my right, Birgitta is on my left, and Russ?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s wife sits across from me next to Birgitta. The two women are acquainted and greet each other with affection. I am pleased with their connection.

[Before their arrival we become aware that our young daughter is at their home, which we had not known about. Apparently she is being kept there in secret, but has made a clandestine telephone call to us and keeps us on the line while she is required to do something. Soon we hear the sound of a vacuum cleaner. After a while we hear beautiful mature piano playing. This is followed by more elementary playing of the same theme. Apparently it is our daughter signaling us. Birgitta and I wait for the right moment to discuss why our daughter is in their home.]

Russ seems puzzled by the relocation and setting of the table. I tell him that I had the original table changed, along with its disciplinary setting configuration. He says nothing, but seems to understand my having redirected the prior arrangement and accepts the unexpected change.

After the usual opening pleasantries, I say:

?¢Ç¨?ìRuss, just so there is no misunderstanding, I learned that our original table had been “set up” in a certain way that seemed strange and inappropriate. Do you know what I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m talking about??¢Ç¨¬ù

Russ nods. His wife does not seem to know what we are talking about and turns to Birgitta to engage in a separate conversation.

I continue, ?¢Ç¨?ìWhere shall we begin our conversation? I assume we have an agenda. I sent you a letter recently in response to your last letter to me with some suggestions of topics. Do you agree with those topics or do you have a list of your own??¢Ç¨¬ù

Russ answers, ?¢Ç¨?ìEugene, I think the list you sent is much too intense and confrontational and I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want our discussion tonight to be unpleasant.?¢Ç¨¬ù

?¢Ç¨?ìI agree with that wholeheartedly, Russ, so what are your suggestions for modifying or adding to what I sent to you??¢Ç¨¬ù

Russ says, ?¢Ç¨?ìPerhaps we can begin with the last topic you offered, which is Birgitta?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s recent reconciliation in Ogden??¢Ç¨¬ù

I say, ?¢Ç¨?ìExcellent idea! That may very well cover all the bases and eliminate the need to discuss the other items. Let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s see how this plays out. Birgitta, tell our guests about what happened after we had had dinner with my friends Don and Mae, who drove down from Logan to meet us half way from Salt Lake.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Birgitta proceeds to relay her experience with having called her first husband MF (a Jew) prior to our arrival in Ogden and their agreeing to meet to resolve long standing family matters of over 40 years..

After dinner, we are traveling together to another place, apparently to talk with more privacy. Then Russ notices that I do not have my briefcase. I become alarmed, realizing I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve left it at the restaurant. He and I immediately begin racing back to the restaurant, hoping that we will find the briefcase in tact

Arriving at the restaurant, we find my briefcase at the Maitre de?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s desk. All is in order. I express my relief and thanks to Russ for his observant eye. We return to our wives to bring closure to our evening, since Birgitta?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s story has brought new insight and purpose to this first dinner meeting.

Birgitta and I follow Russ and wife to his home in our respective vehicles to pick up our daughter. It seems understood that she will not come back here, but I want to make it explicit and say:

?¢Ç¨?ìRuss, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think I need to say that our daughter won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be back here, do I??¢Ç¨¬ù

?¢Ç¨?ìIt won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t be necessary, Eugene. I think the matter is closed.?¢Ç¨¬ù

?¢Ç¨?ìI do hope so.?¢Ç¨¬ù We shake hands all around. Birgitta and I put our daughter in our car to return home as our daughter falls fast asleep in the back seat.
Rick Jepson Says:
November 4th, 2006 at 2:44 PM
Eugene: no offense intended. Sorry if it was given. When it’s my own obesity (which seems to be overstated in this thread), I’m gonna get a little defensive. : )

Anyway, I get overly candid and don’t mean to. I’ve done it a lot on this blog before..

Also, “take it to the mattress” is a Godfather term.
Rory Says:
November 7th, 2006 at 3:52 PM
Stephen, you are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell.

Now, I must commandeer a vessel to Sector 12.
Matt Thurston Says:
November 7th, 2006 at 4:06 PM
Brilliant!

Maybe, by recognizing his “toyness,” Buzz did fulfill his mission.

As you said, his reward may be a ticket back to Star Command or a place in a museum full of other perfected toys (let’s hope not). Or it could be a cycle through a Toy Recycler, who uses Buzz’s parts to create a new toy, a new toy life with a new “Andy.”

And if it is none of the above, at least a toy life well-lived is a great reward in and of itself.
Matt Thurston Says:
November 7th, 2006 at 4:19 PM
Stephen, I see a “Tao of Pooh”-like book coming out of this. Get to work!

Some quotes that can easily be re-interpreted using your implied metaphor:

Mr. Potato Head: How come you don’t have a laser, Woody?
Woody: It’s not a laser. It’s a little light bulb that blinks.
Hamm: What’s wrong with him?
Mr. Potato Head: Laser envy.

Hamm: Wow. Impressive wingspan. Very good.
Woody: Oh, what? What? These are plastic. He can’t fly.
Buzz: They are a terillium-carbonic alloy, and I can fly.
Woody: No, you can’t.
Buzz: Yes, I can.
Woody: Can’t.
Buzz: Can.
Woody: Can’t, can’t, ca-an’t.
Buzz: I tell you, I could fly around this room with my eyes closed.
Woody: Okay, Mr. Lightbeer, prove it.
Buzz: All right then, I will.
[Buzz launches down the hot wheels track...]
Buzz: Can!
Woody: That wasn’t flying! That was… falling with style!

Mr. Potato Head: How did I get stuck with you as a moving buddy?
Rex: Everyone else was picked.

Buzz: Years of Academy training wasted.

[last lines of movie]
Woody: Buzz? Buzz Lightyear? Are you afraid?
Buzz: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Are you?
[camera pans out]
Woody: Now Buzz, what could Andy possibly get that is worse than you?
Andy: Wow, a puppy!
[camera zooms back in]
Both: Heh, heh!
John Remy Says:
November 7th, 2006 at 10:31 PM
Stephen, I’m so with you. I’m willing to face the truth even if it seems less than ideal. Other toys were kind critical, however, when Woody tried to burst the bubble that Buzz was taught to believe from inception.

And what about his realization that the Emperor Zurg is really his…

SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING! SPOILER WARNING!

…father? Will we come to call Satan “Dad”? Or will we embrace our fears and realize their formative influence in our lives? Or did I just kill the metaphor?
Lisa Tensmeyer Hansen Says:
November 10th, 2006 at 5:58 PM
Yeesh. Have we ALL experienced the fall from being full of promise? Knowing that we were IT and lacked only the amazing future that was surely coming sprung fully to life. We BELIEVED in ourselves, didn’t we? And instead of the future we envisioned, we all learned failure and inadequacy and how blind we were. And became more lovable and loving instead. Fair trade.
Dan Vogel Says:
November 17th, 2006 at 11:23 AM
Cameron,

I haven’t been here for awhile, so sorry for the delay to your question. I think Rick Jepson expressed it well. Generally, I have found that the only people who question such passion are those who have not experienced it themselves. I am also passionate about other things as well; I just don’t write about them. But I got hooked on Mormon studies while I was still a believer, and it just so happens that I didn’t lose my interest with my change of interpretation. If it wasn’t Joseph Smith and Mormonism, I would likely be writing about some other mystery.

I would also like to debunk the notion that I am “the world expert on how Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God.” First, I don’t see myself as an “expert” in anything, much less about how Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. No one can be an expert in that. I prefer to deal with lesser mysteries like: is the Book of Mormon historical? Did Joseph Smith use deception on occasion? What did Joseph Smith think about himself? These questions are plenty tough enough.
Rory Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 1:16 AM
I don’t know that I collect Mormon oddities. Mormon related books, to some extent, but that’s about it.

I do, however, collect shot glasses like your friend. Places I’ve been, events I’ve attended. I chose the shot glass because they are fairly common and they take up less space than a beer stein.
JaneAnne Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:35 AM
That’s funny that you would post that just now, Jana. My mom and her siblings recently moved my grandmother into assisted living, and over Thanksgiving weekend we were divvying up as many of the smaller items in her house as we could get people to take. My uncle’s wife had already snatched the purple glass grape set (they sat on the side table in grandma’s purple dining room), but my aunt managed to find me a clear set in reasonably good condition–a few grapes that need to be rewired. They’ll be taking a place of honor in my own dining room very shortly!
paula Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 10:26 AM
We were unable to find my grandma’s glass grapes when she died, but I do have her grapemaking supplies– a few unused Christmas balls (which were the molds), and wire, wire cutters, some dried up resin and colors. A few years ago, we made them for our Rocky Mountain Retreat in Colorado, and I did the research on how to make them. Oddly enough, the info all came from men– one was the owner of Zims in SLC. I think women were too embarrassed to admit they knew how. One of those men said the grapes were so popular because they were a legitimate way for Mormon women to get high off the fumes.

I have a few photos from the grape making session on line. They were scanned off someone else’s scrapbook pages, so the photos are cut kind of funny:
http://homepage.mac.com/sootica/PhotoAlbum7.html

Chieko Okazaki was there, but didn’t make any– she just walked around watching, and laughing at us. The pouring part is the worst, and I’m sorry we have no photos of it. We were doing this about midnight, in the crafts building of the camp we use, and the room was thick with fumes. The security guard walked in, a female security guard, who thought we had lost our minds, but understood, totally, I’m sure, when we explained.

One of the women who made them actually has four generations of grapes. Her great grandmother’s, grandmother’s, mother’s, and now her very own.
Jana Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 11:01 AM
I had no idea that glass grapes involved such labor and chemicals. What were those RS sisters thinking?? Paula the pictures are so cool–thanks for the link!

I find that I curse my glass grapes whenever I dust. They are impossble to keep clean–too many surfaces/grooves/etc. Any advice from those who have glass grapes on display?
paula Says:
December 2nd, 2006 at 5:00 PM
The grapes are really quite a project. Just a piddly little bunch of 24 or so takes about 3 hours, not including the cooling/hardening time. To make them, you get resin from a skateboard shop, and the colors you want, and the chemical that makes the resin harden, then mix it. We didn’t know that the resin would dissolve styrofoam and unfortunately we had gotten styrofoam cups to mix the colors in. So we had to work REALLY fast so the cups wouldn’t dissolve. (My husband’s a chemist and was quite unimpressed with me when he heard what we’d done.) The fumes are really strong, and the stuff gets quite hot. We got our fingers covered with sticky resin, and then read the fine print on the can, which said we needed turpentine to clean it off. Since it was midnight, near Granby, CO, getting turpentine seemed like a long shot, but the security guard who wandered in went and got us some from the maintenance shop. After the stuff is mixed, you pour it into Christmas ornaments and then stick the copper wires in before it hardens. You have to work pretty quickly, even if your cup isn’t dissolving in your hands. We also learned the hard way that breaking off the Christmas ornaments from the hardened resin is a bit dangerous. We should have had towels to wrap over them to keep the glass from flying too much. Then you drill holes in a suitable piece of wood for a stem, and wire them to the stem. I lived in Tucson at the time, and had collected a nice bunch of wood to use, then managed to drive off and leave it home– so you can see the whole process was a near-debacle. We scrounged for wood around our cabin, and decided it was a nice memento that way, but not as cool looking as my iron wood and mesquite.

I have a couple of bunches of grapes that I bought back in the day when they still showed up at the DI occasionally. I don’t have any good ideas for keeping them clean. Mine aren’t out anymore, due to space limitations mostly.
manaen Says:
December 5th, 2006 at 9:02 PM
Thanks for the reminder. For decades the set of blue and green glass grapes my mother made back when were a center point in my parents’ home. She died last June — I wonder where those grapes went.
Tom Grover Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 1:26 AM
Were the grapes a common RS project of a past generation? I don’t recall any matriarchs in my tribe having them.

Shot glasses… started collecting them when I was 14, much to the alarm of my parents. I now have several hundred, much to the chagrin of my wife.

Odd pieces in the living room? Hmmmm. I have a Sunstone next to a resin Chinese dragon next to a 2 foot Christmas nutracker rendered in the image of the Utah Jazz’s Anrei Kirilenko (a REALLY cool freebie from a Jazz game last year).
Jana Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 12:15 PM
I think the grapes were largely done in the 60s. Now because I wasn’t even born yet, someone else may have to confirm my assertion.

My grandma (raising kids in the 50s & 60s) had several sets but my mother (raising kids in the 70s and 80s) didn’t have any.

So Tom, do you use your shot glasses or just display them? How many Mormon-themed shot glasses are in your collection?
paula Says:
December 6th, 2006 at 4:58 PM
My guess on the grapes was that they were a huge fad around 1968. I’d say they probably died out by about 1970. I don’t remember anyone actually making them. I just remember them appearing about 1968, suddenly, in everyone’s house. I would have been about 8 or so. I could be wrong on the guess. My friend who remembers them vividly is about the same age, but it sounds as though his grandmother was very into them– and he has a hanging bunch of them made into a lamp.
Tom Grover Says:
December 8th, 2006 at 2:15 AM
Jana,

In two years I have learned that marriage is the art of comprimise and the shot glasses are on display in the privacy of the bedroom. My wife is quite a gracious woman with something that she finds so incredibly tacky.

I don’t have any LDS themed shotglasses, but that would be the absolute COOLEST! They would have to go on display in the living room as a conversation piece for at least a couple of weeks. Maybe we could talk Dan Wotherspoon and Company to make some available at the next Symposium as a souvenir! Do you think they would be a hit?
Ricercar Says:
January 29th, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Interesting perspective Rob (#34), I would be interested in the source for the Brigham Young approach to “The Natural Man.”

Personally I don’t see the LDS church changing course on SSA. Where there are some parallels with other big changes in doctrine, there is a big exception with SSA because there exists no nuanced view or distinctly unique perspective among the current leadership. With Polygamy, there existed leaders who dissented from polygamy in some public way. With Priesthood discrimination, there always existed inconsistancy, from Joseph Smith to J. Reuben Clark, Hugh B. Brown and Lowell Bennion, this eased the change.

The change in both these cases was not a substantive change. The first official declaration was not a change of doctrine, polygamy is still a dormant doctrine. Priesthood discrimination remains doctrinally based. We still have Section 132 and the Book of Abraham – the church has only changed the practice of the faith, not the doctrine.

What Dallin Oakes is saying, and the proclamation on the family is doing is drawing the line in the sand that will make faith in revelation more difficult when science continues to draw conclusions that are contrary to that doctrine.

For me, this is troubling; however, I see the greatest challenge is the emphasis on the historicity of the Book of Mormon has created a straw-man that says history is ‘this’, while losing focus on the inspiration that can be drawn from the Book.
Randy Says:
February 6th, 2007 at 9:42 AM
My children have autism and are severely MR, and it was the shabby treatment of our kids by the local ward that started me on the road to apostasy. I already had growing doubts, but the situation with the kids served as a catalyst to explore those doubts. Moreover, the prevailing attitude in the church towards children like mine appeared to be that because they already are destined for the Celestial Kingdom, the church really doesn’t need to provide any special programs designed to assist their spiritual development. My understanding is that things have improved somewhat, especially in Utah, and I suppose that’s good. Additionally, it was impossible for me to fit my family into the linear LDS model of life progression. Letting go of all of that was liberating.
Todd Wood Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 2:02 PM
Rory, can someone email me or provide a link to the speaking and conference schedule of Sunstone for 2007. Though I have heard of Sunstone, I am quite new to the current discussion.
Rory Swensen Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Hi Todd,

Currently there are two scheduled conferences, with more that have dates TBD.

SunstoneWest will take place on April 21 in San Francisco. The main Salt Lake Symposium will be held August 8-11 at the Sheraton in SLC.

Dan can share any additional firm commitments in other regions. You can also view the Call for Papers announcements by clicking here.
Michael Says:
February 7th, 2007 at 3:08 PM
“For those who have walked the path, for those who have faced the complexities, for those who have reconciled their faith and emerged on the other side, is there not a responsibility to then be an example of healthy faith for those still on the path? For those still fighting?”

Rory,

I guess my comments on the other post have served some good. This post is very good. I agree wholeheartedly with your comment above. I am an ex-Irish Catholic convert to the church (age 19), returned missionary, single, chaste, gay, priesthood holder who left the church for 10 years after trying to reconcile my faith with my sexual orientation. I returned three years ago. While my journey was very difficult and painful, I have finally come to peace with who I am. There are many unanswered questions but my faith has never been deeper or stronger than it is now at age 45.

I hope that Sunstone is not only able to address the difficult issues but also to show how others have come through those issues with a much stronger faith and commitment to the Kingdom.
john f. Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 5:26 AM
Having attended several of the sessions at the 2006 SLC Symposium, I should probably say that many of the sessions actually are not very welcoming of faithful Latter-day Saints. I am not saying they are not interesting or valuable or needed by some people, but when you say that Sunstone welcomes everyone, I am unsure whether that can be accepted uncritically. If the material being said from the podium of a Sunstone session at the symposium is simply offensive to either the sensitivities or the beliefs/faith of a faithful Latter-day Saint, then it is not welcoming, no matter how fun intellectually the debate can be.
Stephen Carter Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 12:37 PM
What do you mean by “faithful Latter-day Saints?”
Rory Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 2:02 PM
john f,

I think there is a distinction between being welcoming and being inoffensive.

I will offer one qualification to the “everyone is welcome” idea: Everyone is welcome, provided they are constructive and respectful. That’s fairly nebulous, but part of the selection process in accepting session proposals seeks to ensure that the presenters and participants hold to some level of decorum and respect.

That said, given the nature of live sessions and questions/comments from the audience, you’ll see an occasional failure to uphold those ideals. With the shear number of sessions available, we’re almost sure to offend someone.

Does that make them unwelcome? No. Granted, it isn’t for everyone. It’s an open forum with some challenging sessions, not summer camp.

The issue that I see here is broader than Dr. Bushman’s comments. It is a perception of Sunstone that unfairly dissuades participation from some corners. MHA tends to escape this and is praised for having a range of participants. Sunstone steps beyond the technical and focuses on where our religion affects our lives, and in doing so we seem to step into something of a mire.

We are not an apologetic conference, so we are criticized from one side for being too heretical. We are not a hostile conference, so we are criticized from the other side for not being heretical enough. Maybe we are doing something right? We’d just like to see the range of participants and presenters expand.
Matt Thurston Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 4:22 PM
I think John F asks a fair question. And I like Stephen’s question and Rory’s response.

I have attended both the past two MHA conferences in Vermont and Wyoming and the past two SLC Sunstone Symposiums. I love both forums. Bro. Bushman cites MHA as a place where open and respectful discussion of Mormon issues occurs between people of various beliefs. I’d agree. However, MHA is not a forum where many of my home ward members would feel comfortable. My wife still talks of the shock she experienced during her first MHA two years ago. But just because some Mormons would feel threatened by what they hear at MHA doesn’t make it bad. Some people are further along in their faith and/or study of Church History. Some people have a more intellectually-based testimony. For them, MHA is a graduate course; it is not the Groundhog Day-like repetition of Church History 101 we get in Sunday School every four years.

In my experience, Sunstone is no different. Sunstone and MHA are similar in that they both explore (sometimes) difficult issues with respect to Mormonsim. They differ in that MHA analyzes facts and interpretations, but Sunstone generally takes it one step further and asks, “But what does this mean to us?” Personal feelings and beliefs are engaged. At MHA, people are largely left to their private conclusions. This may make Sunstone a little more “risky,” but the personal payoff is greater as well.

The second difference is MHA’s more or less narrow focus on things historical, while Sunstone opens the playing field to discussion of culture, art, current events, etc. It goes without saying that it is easier and safer discussing the pros and cons of Plural Marriage 100+ years ago verses the pros and cons of Gay Marriage today, to cite just one example. Again, this doesn’t make Sunstone bad, but I’d agree to some extent with John F that it is not for everyone. Sunstone is for people at a certain point on their faith journey. I believe there are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of such people throughout the Church that would benefit from such a forum, but who are discouraged from participation by misinformation and rumor, or the nebulous threat of “alternative voices.”
Rory Swensen Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Matt,

Thanks for chiming in. One thing I’d like to reinforce, and your comment does so nicely, is that this is in no way an MHA versus Sunstone smackdown. I enjoy MHA, and agree both play a valuable role.
Rick Jepson Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 11:01 PM
john f.,

I’d be really interested in the details of your experience. Which sessions did you think were that overtly offensive? Did you attend any that weren’t?

Thanks,

Rick
LauraC Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 12:51 AM
In my experience attending Sunstone, MHA, John Whitmer Historical Association and similar symposiums/meetings over the past couple of decades, I have to admit that there have been plenty of times when I’ve been shocked/rocked by speakers or topics that have pushed my personal envelope of comfort and understanding.

However, there have been many more times when I’ve been strengthened, had questions answered, or just been relieved to find out that, “wow, I’m not the only one wrestling with this question.” I’ve personally felt that, had it not been for the ability to attend conferences that discuss hard issues, and to question and challenge those presenting hard ideas in their presentations, I would not have remained an active, contributing member of the Church – and I know I am not alone. Every symposium I attend, another person says to me how attending the symposium makes it easier to attend his/her regular ward.

Sure, there was a period when many in the Sunstone community were feeling hurt or even threatened as scholars were disciplined by their local leaders. Not surprisingly, it led to a “circle the wagons” response by many studying Mormon-ness, fearing for their own Mormon identities and hurting at the seeming injustices suffered by friends and associates. Perhaps because of the nature of Sunstone symposiums, and their give-and-take conversational setup, they became a place for discussion about the pain, catharsis and maybe even dirty-laundry airing. Most of the acute pain inflicted more than 10 years ago is now healed, and although some lingers, there are new ideas, discussions, understandings and depths plumbed every year.

More often than not, symposium sessions have urged me to examine my own faith and actions more closely, sometimes increasing my orthodoxy and sometimes increasing my heterodoxy. When I’ve been able to discuss, explore, seek for and find answers with the community of hobbyists, scholars, and “regular folks” interested in all things Mormon, it simply adds more depth and meaning to my personal relationship with my God and Savior. Remember, “there must needs be opposition in all things” – sometimes you get warm fuzzies from presentations, and sometimes you get cold pricklies, but eventually, if you continue to “study it out in your mind”, at least in my personal experience, you can come to a place of peace and understanding (at least until the next presenter rocks your little boat a bit more).

So, my recommendation is that if you haven’t been to a symposium lately, take the opportunity to attend a session or two, either in person or virtually by downloading a session recording from Sunstone’s website. You can always attend Sunstone symposiums one session at a time, so come on in and find a session that increases your love of God – I guarantee that they exist.
Trevor Says:
February 10th, 2007 at 12:09 PM
In my opinion, Bushman’s comments say as much about where he is coming from as they reflect accurately the relative value of different fora. Not to engage in age-ism here, but on the subject of blogs I think it is perfectly understandable that Bushman doesn’t appreciate the value of these as much as he does the media through which he has done most of his sharing: books, articles, and academic conferences. He is a scholar, and not a scholar of the new generation. And I say this with no intention of deriding his great achievements.

From a scholar acquaintance I learned that one of the emerging trends is to place position papers online instead of simply publishing the article right away. This from a man who is at the top of his field and working in one of the nations top Ivy universities. So the media trends of the academy are changing, although it is still the article and book that secure tenure.

I also agree with those here who appreciate Sunstone as having a different purpose from that of the academic conferences run by MHA and the like. Many of the great intellectuals grappled with their spiritual lives in ways that had little to do with the academy, and I think that the world would be much poorer had they not applied their talents to such issues. Sunstone provides a forum where stimulating, but not necessarily strictly academic, approaches to Mormonism can flourish.

Finally, to Bushman’s credit I would like to point out that he did have some pretty positive things to say about Dan Vogel. Bushman’s finding value in Vogel’s work and speaking of him in such a gentlemanly way is a gesture rarely made by a faithful Mormon. If he is willing to acknowledge Vogel’s worth to Mormon Studies, perhaps he can be persuaded to apply similar value to Sunstone, blogs, etc. They too have an important place in the Mormon community.
Steve M Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 4:26 PM
What I’ve always loved about this chapter is how, when Korihor is struck dumb, the chief judge “put forth his hand and wrote unto Korihor, saying: Art thou convinced of the power of God? In whom did ye desire that Alma should show forth his sign? Would ye that he should afflict others, to show unto thee a sign? Behold, he has showed unto you a sign; and now will ye dispute more?” (Alma 30:51).

Apparently the chief judge thought that Korihor had been cursed with deafness rather than dumbness.
Simeon Says:
February 12th, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Steve M – Good observation. I missed that one.

Rory – Well put. This is why I refuse to repent. After my Bishop compared me to Korihor, all I could think about was being trampled to death. Good thing I found a loophole.
Parker Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:56 AM
And Korihor said, “But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and he said unto me: . . . There is no God.” I think this is the only case I know of a person becoming an atheist because an angel told him there was no God.
John Remy Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:21 AM
The examples of Korihor and Sherem seem to put it into the heads of many members that unbelievers are:

1) insincere (and deep in their hearts really know that God and Christ exist).
2) consciously in league with Satan to bring down God’s church.
3) are doomed to an ignominious death.

When I was in that liminal stage where I was beginning to question and doubt, these stories scared the er…hell…out of me.
john f. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Matt, you wrote “But just because some Mormons would feel threatened by what they hear at MHA doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t make it bad.” This isn’t about faithful Latter-day Saints being “threatened” by information discussed at MHA or Sunstone; nor is this about anything being “bad” or “good”. Faithful Latter-day Saints shouldn’t feel threatened by things discussed at Sunstone because their faith shouldn’t be built on things other than a spiritual witness. As I noted, things can be intellectually fun and academically stimulating, however, without being welcoming. If the claim is that Sunstone “welcomes” everyone, I am just not sure that can be an accurate statement. Perhaps it is a mere equivocation on terms. Perhaps you mean Sunstone welcomes everyone in a very technical sense such as that it is open to the public and anyone is welcome to come in and sit down. If so, then there is no way to dispute that statement and I am not trying to do so.

If, however, you are trying to say that all voices, including the voices of orthodox Latter-day Saints, are “welcome” in the discussion in the sense of desired participation, then it might not be accurate considering the content of some of those discussions. An example from my limited exposure to the SLC Sunstone symposium in 2006 would be Paul Toscano’s presentation on the Church being a hotbed of schoolmarmery, Sycophancy, and vain ambition. This is not an issue of me being offended at something; this is a question about whether such a speech is welcoming of faithful Latter-day Saints sitting in the audience. Why should an orthodox Latter-day Saint be sitting in that audience? What is Sunstone’s vision there? Is it so that the orthodox Latter-day Saint can challenge Toscano’s conclusions and interpretations in an argument after the speech? That did not occur; instead there was a lot of backslapping when he concluded. Isn’t this because Sunstone is welcoming of people who all have the same views (relatively speaking) as each other? Maybe that is not the reason, but it does seem worth considering. Why didn’t I stand up and make a comment challenging Toscano’s views? I consider myself orthodox, so I should have done so, right? The thing is, though, being there I didn’t get the sense that that was what the session was intended for. Toscano has his strong opinions and beliefs and wants to share them to a like-minded audience. That is why it is different than MHA, isn’t it? At MHA, you have no sense that you have a like-minded audience, or am I mistaken? Also, you are not delivering subjective speeches about personal opinions and beliefs (by and large) at MHA, are you? That might be the case, I just don’t know.

John Dehlin did a good job of trying to portray a veneer of objectivity, though, in his presentation at the 2006 Symposium. Condescension to orthodox beliefs and behaviors, nevertheless, expressed themselves at unguarded moments. But the session could be characterized as welcoming of even the orthodox. Still, it was more of a fact-based presentation; it included analysis and interpretation, but it was different somehow that I am having trouble quantifying in this short blurb of a blog comment. Someday I might be able to flesh the thought out more fully, but this is just blogging after all.

One question, though: would Sunstone really be as welcoming of a Richard Draper or Susan Tanner (sorry, just trying to think of some bread-and-butter, entirely orthodox voices off of the top of my head) as it is of a John Remy? Is someone who is actively and deeply involved in the “party line”, i.e. in reinforcing the traditional truth and authority claims, really as welcome as someone who has completely rejected the Church and those truth and authority claims? Truth be told, it simply is not as welcoming of the orthodox, right? I mean, that is simply not its purpose. There’s no shame in owning to that. Thus, I am left to wonder why the resistance to Bushman’s characterization? It should be no insult; Sunstone has a purpose and following that purpose naturally excludes some segment of people — or I should say, makes them less or not fully welcome. even if they are free to wander in and sit down.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether Sunstone is intellectually stimulating or whether some people need it to express their dissatisfaction with the Church, its life, and its doctrines. That certainly is the case.
john f. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Korihor asked for a sign and wanted Alma to inflict someone else as the sign. So Alma was allowed to show him a sign, which was to strike him dumb. Alma asks him whether he thought God would see fit to strike someone else with a sign to convince Korihor. I suppose the same question can now be put to you, since you exhibit an element of incredulity that Korihor should be struck with a sign for not believing Alma’s argument (i.e., that is not what he was actually struck with a sign for; presumably that is clear to you as well).
john f. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:57 AM
err, the chief judge asks him, but the point is the same.
Elise Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:08 PM
LOL.

I have nothing clever or intelligent to add to the discussion……just really enjoyed the post and comments that followed!
Rick Jepson Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 10:55 AM
I think there is a wide range. I’ve been in some very orthodox sessions.
Matt Thurston Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 1:54 PM
John, my use of the word “bad” was just a case of me being too lazy to think of a better adjective. I basically thought the same thing you said when I wrote it, but let it stand because, as you say, “this is just blogging after all.”

I see what you are getting at with your definition of the word “welcome.” That said, I think all organizations have a more or less like-minded audience. Is Sunstone more or less like-minded than MHA? It’s hard to say because as you say (and I said in #7), Sunstone engages personal opinion and belief more than MHA. As such it is easier to determine the dominant “voice” of the group. I’d agree that the more liberal voice usually carries the day at most Sunstone Symposium sessions, but that does not mean the audience shares the views/opinions of that voice, as you demonstrate yourself by your attendance. I think the same phenomenon is at work in Gospel Doctrine or Priesthood/Relief Society meetings. The conservative voice usually carries the day. It doesn’t mean people in the audience agree with the conservative point of view, it just means that it often goes unchecked.

For example, imagine someone in Sunday School popping off with the following unequivocal comment: “Watching football on TV on Sunday is a violation of the commandment that we keep the sabbath day holy!” Such a comment often goes unchecked because to suggest otherwise is to go against the conservative grain. I’ve seen the same phenomenon at Sunstone, just in the opposite direction. For example, someone might say, “George Bush is a complete idiot!” or something like that, a comment that would probably go unchecked because it goes against the liberal grain.

Is Sunstone welcoming of all voices? Of course not. Is any organization? Sunstone goes to great lengths to filter out and exclude the “anti” or hostile-to-Mormonism voices. It might go to the same lengths to filter out extreme conservative voices as well, but as you’d probably imagine, such voices rarely, if ever, submit symposium proposals.

In any case, I think I basically agree with your welcome or not welcome premise, though we may disagree about the length, width, and height of that “welcome” box.

Having said that, Bushman’s characterization of Sunstone was either misinformed or out of date. Sunstone is a place that “explores the potentials of Mormonism, what are its depths and its heights,” a place where “these discussions occur that are not strictly on a technical level?¢Ç¨¬¶ this fact versus that fact?¢Ç¨¬¶ but they have something to do with the state of our souls; after all what we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re looking for is to evolve, to grow into better people, we need to keep reflecting back on how we keep in touch with God, how we keep intelligence flowing into us?¢Ç¨¬¶” It isn’t necessarily orthodox, but as Bushman says himself, “I like to let these guys roll, and if they get off into some heresies, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not so bad.” I recognize some orthodox Mormons would not feel comfortable in such an atmosphere.

John, why don’t you work up a symposium proposal for the upcoming symposium in August? I’d love to see a Mormon Mentality panel to take on some subject.
Matt Thurston Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 2:21 PM
I’ve always wondered what is so wrong about seeking a sign? Don’t we all seek signs of God’s existence? I’ve been doing this since I can remember. Isn’t praying for an answer to this or that question a form of seeking signs? Isn’t looking for an answer in a book, or talking to a friend or church leader a form of sign seeking?

You bet I want a sign. I might not be smug about it like Korihor, but I’m sympathetic all the same.

Signs seemed to be dolled out indiscriminately in the scriptures. Just last Sunday I taught a lesson out of the gospel doctrine manual. I’m too lazy to look up the scriptures right now, but in one of the lesson’s stories/anecdotes, Jesus reads from the book of Isaiah about the coming of Christ and tells the assembled listeners that this scripture has now been fulfilled, that he is the said Christ. The audience’s response is doubt and hesitation. Isn’t this Joseph’s son? Could the Christ come out of Nazareth? These people are rebuked for their lack of faith. In the very next story/anecdote from the lesson we read the story of Jesus meeting some of his disciples for the first time. They are fishing but having no luck. Jesus fills their nets with fish and he invites them to be fishers of men. They willingly follow.

In the first story no sign is given and the people are rebuked for their lack of faith; in the second story a sign is given and the people are rewarded for their faith. What am I missing here?
Dan Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 2:49 PM
(Quick note: I was composing this off-line while Matt was replying, so know that if there’s redundancy in some of our responses, that’s why. Thanks for the points you make, Matt. I think the one about how conservative answers/comments carry the day in Sunday settings is really good and helpful in conjunction to what I wrote below about the exaggerated remarks that get laughs but really shouldn’t in some Sunstone sessions.)

Hi john f.

I really appreciate your comments and many good observations and questions. Your queries about what ?¢Ç¨?ìwelcoming?¢Ç¨¬ù to ?¢Ç¨?ìfaithful Latter-day Saints?¢Ç¨¬ù means are really terrific. Let me try my best to respond in a way that is direct to the issue but that can also provide a broad background.

You ask:

?¢Ç¨?ìIs someone who is actively and deeply involved in the ?¢Ç¨?ìparty line?¢Ç¨¬ù, i.e. in reinforcing the traditional truth and authority claims, really as welcome as someone who has completely rejected the Church and those truth and authority claims? Truth be told, it simply is not as welcoming of the orthodox, right??¢Ç¨¬ù

As magazine editor and Sunstone executive director, let me state immediately that Sunstone absolutely welcomes presentations or articles that present very standard positions. As Elbert Peck used to say when he was in my position, ?¢Ç¨?ìthe easiest way to get something accepted for the symposium is to present a conservative or orthodox point of view.?¢Ç¨¬ù And Sunstone used to be a place where plenty of traditional believers (scholars and amateurs who fully accepted LDS truth claims) presented and published. It was a great era, the time when our symposiums and magazine were the most exciting and fun. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d love things to go back to the time when Dan Peterson and Dan Vogel would debate just how anti-Masonic the Book of Mormon really is or when Lou Midgely and David Bohn would challenge the assumptions behind the ?¢Ç¨?ìNew Mormon History?¢Ç¨¬ù and be engaged in return by Mike Quinn and others. Those kinds of sessions represent the ideal ?¢Ç¨?ìopen forum?¢Ç¨¬ù that Sunstone strives to host?¢Ç¨Äùwhen people, no matter what their take, get together and debate their positions and allow the ?¢Ç¨?ìmarketplace of ideas?¢Ç¨¬ù do its sorting of the relative merits of the various pieces of the puzzle. So my initial response to your question is ?¢Ç¨?ìyes!?¢Ç¨¬ù Sunstone truly welcomes the orthodox and those willing to represent traditional positions.

That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s the ?¢Ç¨?ìideal world?¢Ç¨¬ù answer. The reality of today—which is post-Elder Oaks?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s going on record about ?¢Ç¨?ìAlternate Voices,?¢Ç¨¬ù post-First Presidency statement on symposia, post-September Six disciplinings—is that very few of those orthodox believers who were once willing to present at symposiums and publish with Sunstone feel quite the same green light to do so today as before these things happened. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not so much official job sanctions BYU and CES people (the most likely candidates to argue these positions) fear: we have BYU?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s spokespersons on record even recently that there is no school policy against participation, though there are a few deans who apparently make it known that it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a no-no in their minds. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s much more an unofficial having to figure a cost/benefit calculation about participating as they still have to interact with even-more-conservative colleagues, etc. In short, there?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s been a ?¢Ç¨?ìchill effect?¢Ç¨¬ù going on since the early 1990s that, even if not officially, has effectively limited the ranks we draw our speakers from. We still have conservative and moderate ?¢Ç¨?ìfaithful?¢Ç¨¬ù speakers from BYU and elsewhere speak, but nothing like the numbers we used to have.

You focus in a few spots on the question of the faithful member feeling welcome in the audience. I hope they’d feel welcome in most sessions, but I agree that a session like Toscano?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s 2006 presentation on moral attitudes prevalent in conservative America today would feel much different than Dehlin?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s report on Mormon cyberspace. I myself don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t feel exactly comfortable attending a presentation like Toscano?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s and much prefer different types of sessions. (As a sidenote for those who haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t heard the session, Toscano?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s talk doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t directly mention Mormonism even once, but allows people to extrapolate connections to certain attitudes present in the Church from the larger picture of conservative attitudes he presents. His presentation was also very long and did not allow time for us to have an official respondent?¢Ç¨Äùsomething I only very reluctantly agreed to as his suggestion for cutting time to allow for a respondent was to jettison the portion at the end where he proposes an idea or two for how someone might go about changing things.)

Still, the criterion we use that allows Paul Toscano to speak at Sunstone is the same we try to apply to every presenter: is it good thinking that is based on solid research and/or observation and a reasonably mature outlook on the matter at hand (and this we judge to the best of our ability to judge from an abstract and short write up, which is usually all we have to go on in making decisions); does it ultimately promote a constructive agenda (that is, is the person?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s reason for speaking to say something that is designed to shed light on a topic in such a way that we or whatever it addresses will be better in the long run for having heard and weighed this person?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s take); and is this person willing to engage others who may disagree with him or her and to do so with respect for the others?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ position and what they might hold as sacred?

I would also hope any audience member knows him- or herself well enough to gauge ahead of time how likely they are to feel ?¢Ç¨?ìwelcome?¢Ç¨¬ù in a particular session. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s one of the reasons we at Sunstone insist on having abstracts in our programs. It would be SO much easier (and cheaper!) for us to simply list titles and very brief bio data as does MHA and almost every other conference out there! We really DO want audience members to feel comfortable, but we also feel it is important for them to do their homework with the program before deciding to attend a session. You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ll notice that only very rarely will Sunstone put something potentially controversial in one of its plenary session slots. For each session slot, we try to schedule a decent range of topics and ?¢Ç¨?ìheat?¢Ç¨¬ù levels (euphemism for how likely something is to cause discomfort for someone who isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t already familiar with a particular speaker or topic) so folks from all over the “faithfulness” spectrum would be able to find something appealing (or comfortable) to them that hour.

I agree with your points about how Sunstone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s broad focus versus that of the MHA allows for sessions that are more personal journey oriented (?¢Ç¨?ìsubjective speeches about personal opinions and beliefs?¢Ç¨¬ù) and therefore more likely to involve a wide range of opinions about the Church as a whole or various policies than a presentation describing a person or specific event might, such as those more common to MHA than Sunstone. And I agree that there does exist an assumption among many presenters and attendees that most in the audience are quite liberal politically and are at least pretty comfortable with exploring possibilities regarding scripture, Church teachings, leaders, and policies that would not be appropriate for Sunday worship setting. This does lead, unfortunately, in my opinion, to one encountering occasional cheap shots and exaggerated statements that get laughs when they shouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t (and I believe wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t, were it not for the ?¢Ç¨?ìlive?¢Ç¨¬ù setting and were people to have a chance to really analyze what the person was saying or how well-thought-out their point was).

Anyway, too long a response. I hope something here is clarifying a bit on at least how I see the ?¢Ç¨?ìwelcome?¢Ç¨¬ù question for ?¢Ç¨?ìfaithful members?¢Ç¨¬ù regarding both presentations and audience attendance.

Cheers!
Dan Wotherspoon
Kevinf Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 3:08 PM
RE # *

Matt, faith promoting experiences are for those who are exercising faith. Alma 32, so often cited, says that you have to try an experiment by making space for your faith, and hoping that it is true. The good citizens in the synagogue in the example you cited were only expressing doubt, not faith. They immediately discounted the Savior’s pronouncement by belittling him and his background that they all knew.

On the other hand, we have some evidence that some of the apostles called in your second example were already disciples of John the Baptist. Others called were already following Christ, and most were acquainted or knew of him. If you exercise no faith, you don’t get your faith rewarded with any kind of sign. Faith itself (heresy alert) is a form of “work”, just as prayer is.

You said it clearly at the end of your statement. “In the first story no sign is given and the people are rebuked for their lack of faith;in the second story a sign is given and the people are rewarded for their faith.” In both cases the sign was given or not given, based on the faith displayed. The faith came first, and then the evidence of the faith.

As to Korihor, the sign was given not for his benefit, but for the benefit of those who were exercising their faith, even if it was just Alma and the chief judge. Korihor’s plight and subsequent unfortunate experience with the Zoramites shows the difference between knowledge, which Korihor had, and faith, which he did not.

Faith is simply to hope for and act in a manner for an outcome that cannot be proven to exist. Lack of faith, however sincere, does not share that ability to act as if it were true, and then find out it is true.

I know, many of you, including me, have had experiences where faith has not been rewarded, but just as many times, it has. I’m not able to predict these outcomes, but it happens often enough for me to continue in the “faith”, despite some doubts about certain specifics.
Matt Thurston Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Thanks, Kevin. Nicely said. I’d agree that any knowledge or belief (secular, spiritual, etc.) requires some effort or work. Nobody is going to give me a Master’s degree if I just ask for one. It didn’t appear to me that the disciples had done anything to merit their “sign,” that it was offered free of charge, and that they chose to follow after witnessing the sign. But I am not a scriptorian so I’ll accept your interpretation.

In any case, I prefer your simple approach to faith (as expressed here and in previous comments) and signs as it is grounded in the reality I see all around me. The dramatic, physical signs portrayed in the Book of Mormon (of which, Korihor is but one minor example) are nice because they offer simple, black and white illustrations of certain gospel principles in action, but they aren’t grounded in reality as we know it. Sometimes, as John Remy points out in #4, the doubters among us are not insincere, in-league-with-Satan, sign-seeking Korihors, but genuine disciples, fishers of men, who have come to interpret their signs differently. In such situations, a nice, unmistakable sign now and then that we or they are on the right track would sure be welcome.
Kevinf Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Matt,

I agree. I’d appreciate an unmistakable sign now and then, myself. The ones I do see, tend towards the small and mundane, not so much grand and amazing, although I have had one experience where I was given an IP subnet mask that solved a huge problem at work for me. It came in the form of a windows dialog box that woke me up in the middle of the night, which pretty much amazed me for two reasons. One, I had no idea the Lord understood IP addressing and variable length subnet masks, and two, I had actually been praying for help with the issue, as it had our company and a customer totally at odds with each other. It’s my Elder-Nelson-heart-incision-here-on-the-dotted-line moment.

More typical is the overwhelming sense of the spirit that came to me as I was doing my monthly cleaning of the chapel, and was vacuuming in one of the primary classrooms. I was thinking about needing to do a better job at it, and about the kids, adults, investigators who came to church each Sunday. I was suddenly struck by how the cleaning of the chapel was an act of love, and I needed to get a better attitude about it, or be trodden underfoot by visiting Zoramites. Not making fun of it, but to me it was an unmistakable sign that came just because, however reluctantly, I was doing my duty (exercising my faith, even though I had previously had issues with how the chapel cleaning program was being handled).

I suspect that some of those Book of Mormon moments should come under the heading of “I wrote this upon the plates after I realized that it was Significant”. There probably was judicious editing, leaving out some of the details. I’ve often thought about Laman’s record, and how it probably started something like “I, Laman, having been born of whacked out parents, and unmercifully afflicted by an obnoxious, know-it-all younger brother, who always got Mom and Dad to believe his side of things, etc…”. Who knows what Mormon and Moroni edited out, or chose to emphasize?

I personally have decided that I might not have liked Captain Moroni very much as a person, while respecting him as a military leader and church leader. He ran around threatening anyone who didn’t see things his way with his sword, pretty much stifled some kinds of free speech, and conducted military tribunals with summary executions. I would have struggled with being his bishop. I perhaps from time to time struggle with some of our modern general authorities for the same reasons. While I respect their spiritual insights, I often don’t see things the same way they do, and wonder how I would react to sitting in ward council meetings with them, or going out to dinner.

Oh well, faith would be dead without works, and work entails something hard and frequently onerous, or it wouldn’t be work.

Parts of my faith are simple, and other aspects incredibly complex and maddeningly frustrating. I just keep plugging along, enduring to the end, and get some nice surprises now and then.
john f. Says:
February 14th, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Matt and Dan:

Thank you for your detailed responses. It is too bad that there has been something of a chill, as you state, but on the other hand it isn’t too hard to see why orthodox people wouldn’t find it very enjoyable to sit and chat with people like Paul Toscano or those that share his views. It isn’t about a desire to silence views but rather merely about self-selection. This self-selection means that, as Matt has noted, a certain voice carries the day at Sunstone. I would say that the converse example is not Sunday School but rather (perhaps) a FAIR Symposium, where Paul Toscano or Will Bagley might not find the company or presentations very enjoyable.

But your comments are well taken and I hope will go a long way to quell any concerns that someone stumbling on this thread from Google might have from anything I might have written.
Ryan Jentzsch Says:
February 15th, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I worked for Sunstone back in the days of Dan Rector, and Elbert Peck. I worked as the bookkeeper. Those were fun times. The George P. Lee scandal had just broken, and Sunstone had just published his letter in the latest issue when I started working for Dan and Elbert.

What’s funny is that the criticisms of “Sunstone going soft” happened all the time even back then. In fact I remember one Sunstone reader had noticed that the “”O” in magazines masthead had been changed so that it leaned to right. He wrote something along the lines of: Is the changing of the “O” leaning to the right an indicator of a softer and more conservative Sunstone? He went on to say how soft the magazine had become and how intolerable that was. There were several letters to the editor about how Sunstone had been going soft. Elbert often shard these comments with us, asking our opinions and usually responding to the more intelligent letters to the editor.

At the time I thought that this feedback was weird. Sunstone had recently featured an interview from a former bishop over the San Francisco gay ward. Feminism was still a very hot topic, Dan and Elbert had their temple recommends taken, Sept. six. etc.. So I find it amusing that there are still people out there calling Sunstone soft.

I think there are many people out there that have had painful experiences with the church, it’s members and leaders. Many times the frustration of these people are often complicated by the structure of the church; where the bishop’s decisions are backed up ALWAYS by the stake pres. and he by the area pres. all the way up to the top. The fact that people who have issues with the church do not feel they have a voice or are heard is an underlying point of contention. Sunstone was sometimes a useful venting mechanism. At least someone out there would hear and perhaps understand.

Note: The “O” in the masthead had been changed because Elbert had been experimenting with a new font and a bit of a new layout for the cover. In fact he even asked my opinion on how far the “O” should lean, as well as the rest of the office staff, but this had nothing to do with any new policy of Sunstone.
Jettboy Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 9:10 AM
I would hope it doesn’t go soft. I would hope it dies an ignoble death that the apostate, sinful, and hate filled anti-mormon tract diserves.
Rory Swensen Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Very funny comment about the right-leaning “O”!

And Jettboy, your comment sounds like a good starting point for a Symposium presentation. Put together the abstract and see here for submission information.

You’re also welcome to make a donation, it’s tax-deductible.
Rory Swensen Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Back to serious discussion mode, the several posts on this blog about the image and place of Sunstone are summarized nicely by Dan. It also reflects numerous other discussions on email lists and off-line where those who are working to support Sunstone try to navigate the current waters.

As Dan mentions in his comments here, there has been a distinct chill-effect in the past 10-15 years that has limited the open participation in some of our forums by some interested and interesting members. That’s unfortunate.

Hopefully, by consistently holding to the mission and vision of Sunstone, we will continue to see that chill-effect subside.
Chris Bigelow Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 11:09 AM
No way has Sunstone gone soft! If it’s a little more “calm and careful” now than in the past (to quote myself in Mormonism For Dummies), that allows more people to participate and benefit from this vital open forum. I would hate to see our culture get even more polarized by Sunstone getting “harder”–more stident, more critical, more “know-it-all” than the Brethren–because that would just shrink the audience and lessen the influence even more. I’ve been happier with Sunstone since Dan took over, and I applaud the foundation’s progress under his watch.

(Frankly, I think it’s important to have a heterosexual lead the Sunstone show, because then when the magazine and symposia address homosexual topics–as they do so often–it doesn’t feel SO much like Sunstone is a machine to push the homosexual agenda, which a lot of us feel some reservations about. On my one visit to Sunstone offices before Dan took over, I was struck by the number of rainbow bumper stickers visible in the small parking lot–I think three out of six cars had them. I also don’t think it would be wise for Sunstone to ever be lead by a polygamist. Yeah, be an open forum that includes these more radical constituencies, but keep a more neutral fulcrum and keep things balanced.)
Dan Says:
February 16th, 2007 at 5:36 PM
Thanks for the comments, all—including Jettboy! I hope you will do as Rory suggests and decide to engage us rather than simply wish us ill. We’re open to calls for repentance, especially when we know it comes from a space of genuine concern.

Good to have you join in the Sunstone conversation, Ryan! You’re still immortalized on the wall of our office restroom with your own special-edition Sunstone cover (a neat tradition that Elbert maintained of doing a mock magazine cover for each employee upon their departure). Drop in and say hi sometime. I’d love to hear some stories!

Appreciate the kind words about the change in tenor you’ve sensed Chris, and I applaud the bravery of your parenthetical paragraph at the end where you admit some discomfort with the topic of homosexuality. You raise an issue that has come up from time to time, and Sunstone’s coverage of that topic is certainly the one I get the most heat for from subscribers and symposium attendees—in some cases, they complain that we cover the topic at all. I would like to add however that because Elbert is gay, I believe he was far more careful than I have been in choosing how and what to report on that issue in the news section and especially in what to publish in the magazine and the kinds of panels and presentations to host at symposiums.

(One point of clarification about your observation from years ago of the number of rainbow bumper stickers on cars in the parking lot: up until about three years ago, one of the upstairs offices in our building was leased to the company that produces the Little Lavender Book, which is Salt Lake’s directory of sorts for GLBT-friendly businesses. Plus, it’s been a long, long time since Sunstone has had more than four employees, so six cars in our lot is a very rare occasion these days!)

Still, the issue of my having been married to the same woman for twenty-plus years and remaining active in the church has come up from time to time as a positive thing for some Sunstone supporters. I don’t know if something like that would be a determining issue in the hiring process for who might replace me someday, but it’s possible I suppose. Anyway, thanks for your contributions to the discussion.

Dan
Jettboy Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 9:21 AM
“Thanks for the comments, all?¢Ç¨Äùincluding Jettboy! I hope you will do as Rory suggests and decide to engage us rather than simply wish us ill. We?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re open to calls for repentance, especially when we know it comes from a space of genuine concern.”

Nope. To engage is to legitimize. That is the last thing I want to do with a magazine that has tried to destroy the faith of the Saints, attacked the morals of God, and mock the leadership of the Church.
Dan Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 9:58 AM
To engage means to be willing to have one’s ideas and assumptions engaged, to be willing to be moved, to have one’s worldview enlarged, to grow. I hope you’ll find yourself in that space one day.
Rick Jepson Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Jettboy,

Would you mind at least giving specific examples of what you’re talking about? As a recommend-holding, calling-fulfilling member that participates regularly in both the symposiums and the magazine…..I’ve yet to see anything like what you’re describing. I’m genuinely interested in what you’ve seen or heard that makes your react that way.

–Rick
Paula Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Well, ignoring Jett Boy here, my biggest gripe with Sunstone over the last ten years was that the publication schedule was so irregular that I got so I just didn’t anticipate the magazine anymore. When it came it was sort of a surprise. And the second biggest gripe was that so many of the articles were retrospectives, or honoring someone. Basically just a rehash of stuff that had gone before. So combined with the slow publishing schedule, you’d get the 20th anniversary edition one year, then maybe two more magazines, then it was time for the 25th anniversary. I’m exaggerating a bit, but that’s where I lost interest. I have been very happy with the magazine lately and excited to see you publishing much more on schedule.
Bored in Vernal Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 8:02 PM
Dan, I agree with Paula that the retrospectives and honorings don’t appeal to me. In the last couple of issues I enjoyed “For Better, For Worse…,” “Scarlet Threads,” and “I am Liberal in my Sentiments.” I don’t think Sunstone has gone soft. But I do appreciate when the articles discuss ambiguity, issues and struggles because there are so few forums for this type of discourse. I probably wouldn’t be that interested in a Sunstone that Jettboy could read comfortably.
Rick Jepson Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 9:17 PM
My concern is that Jettboy and a lot of other people like him aren’t actually reading it at all. What, for example, was “anti-mormon” or “hateful” in the past issue of Sunstone? Certainly nothing I could think of. I forwarded copies to my ultra-conservative, young-earther, vote Mitt, read McConkie relatives and friends. No complaints from them.

When I hear complaints like Jettboys, I always ask for examples and, at least so far, never get any replies.
Rory Swensen Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 9:32 PM
As to your questions – do I teach my kids what I believe, or hold my tongue, my response is somewhat neither. I share some of your frustrations, and shared those with a post last year called Feminist Mormon Dads dot com, but after I experience the frustration I tend to find that these are some of the best teaching moments I have as a father.

Rather than tell them what I believe, I try to guide them to think about their own beliefs and convictions. Granted, my influence certainly points them in roughly the same direction that I face, but on the occasions where they don’t share my view I don’t try to convince them, I leave it for another day and trust that they will find their way. The important thing for me is to cultivate a desire in them to nurture their relationship with God.

An example that comes to mind is the Word of Wisdom. We have family who are not members and who drink coffee and tea. When my older children asked about this, it opened us up to a great discussion about commandments, culture, and personal spirituality. The non-member family members are very religious, and my children think the world of them.

Through our discussion, we came to the conclusion that there are commandments from God – love God, love your neighbor, etc. – and there are cultural or institutional norms. If we want to fully participate in our culture, we live according to those standards, and that includes the Word of Wisdom. But someone not living those standards, even if a member, shouldn’t be viewed by us as less spiritual or wrong, simply not participating fully.

It helped my children a great deal, it relieved some of the stress they felt, and I feel that they view living this particular standard one that they choose to not out of fear, but out of a desire to be a part of their culture.

Aside from that, I accept their frustrations with things like Boy Scouts or Achievement Days, we don’t force them to do it, but I find that they want to, generally, once the requirement is removed.
Kathy Says:
February 17th, 2007 at 11:16 PM
We find ourselves in quite similar circumstances you shared, and likewise have many of the same concerns.

Our son will turn 12 this year and is experiencing the common feelings of many 11 year olds in Primary – that it is “boring”, geared too much toward the younger children, all stuff he’s “heard before”, etc. However, this little person has been expressing these sentiments for several years. His current frustrations stem more from the apathy of his teachers and the irreverence and disrespect of his “peers”. This son of ours is our oldest, incredibly precocious, highly gifted, and an “old soul”. He questions why the priesthood is not available to women. He questions the dogma. He questions the apathy he witnesses. He questions the motivations behind the “rules” he is told he should follow. He questions why those who claim to be followers of Christ, seem to act less than Christian (especially while AT Church) much of the time. He questions why he doesn’t hear more about Jesus at Church and why the topic almost always turns back to obedience.

This young man is someone who I feel honored to share a home and life with. He is obviously an “old soul”. He has such conviction and an amazing sense of self. He has proven since he was a very young and tiny person that he listens to the Spirit and is aware of those promptings. When he was 8 or 9 my friend was his Primary teacher. She confided in me that though she’d had at least 10 years experience in teaching Primary, she never had to study the lesson until he was in her class. This same friend also told me that we may want to caution our son about what he says to people: apparentl once he questioned, “Why do you seem to want to brainwash us?” (Please note, this is not a term that we have ever used.) It is difficult to raise this young man for several of the reasons above.

He has a strong testimony of the Gospel. His father and I get nervous though, whenever he goes up to the pulpit to bear his testimony. We never know exactly what he will say! Once he spoke about the second coming, and he tied it in to tornadoes and hurricanes and great storms. The next week there were many storms around the country that made the national news. The next Sunday people started (affectionately) calling him “prophet boy”. We certainly don’t want him to grow up to be a “golden child”. Unfortunately, the ward seems content to do that to him. Interestingly, our bishop pulled us aside about a year ago to share with us that our son was “quite bright.” (really? He also told us that we ought to make sure that everything we teach him aligns with that which he will be learning in Church – especially in the YM program. He told us that we’d better change anything we’re teaching him if it doesn’t completely conform with the mainstream of the Church, or our son will start to “question”. My husband and I were shocked and saddened by this counsel.

Anyway, our daughter was baptized last year. She is also very bright, but an introvert and a pleaser. We have concerns that she will simply follow the party line without thought or concern. My husband is particularly concerned for our daughter’s sense of self. We are concerned for the time that she finds herself in YW. There are many, many concerns we have because of what the culture of the Church seems to teach in regards to women. Just last month during stake conference one of the authorities in telling a story matter-of-factly mentioned “behind every great man, there is a woman.” Now, on the surface I have no problem with this. However, it’s the little things that add up. I realize this is a common phrase within our culture, but it would have been much easier to swallow if he’d said, “beside” instead of “behind”. There are many, many concerns we have with our daughter being raised in a society that appears to blame women and esteems them as inferior.

We love the Gospel. We appreciate many things about the Church. However, we do find ourselves in a dilemma over what choices to make to best benefit our children. We feel humbled and honored to have been given the opportunity to raise and share a life with these amazing people. How do we help them recognize Who they are and what they are capable of? How do we help them to be Aware of truth when at times it may appear to run contrary to the party line? We feel that our family, our children, are our greatest responsibility. We consider them our greatest blessing and esteem them very highly. We feel that God has entrusted some of His choicest children to us. (We hope that everyone feels this way about their children.) How do we raise them to think and to grow their testimonies, when compliance and conformity are touted as the most important thing? How do we help them find and search for Truth, to live the Gospel, when fear is oftentimes the common factor used to motivate to righteousness? This makes little sense to us.

I realize I haven’t answered any of your questions. Let me make an attempt: “do you teach your children what you believe and discourage them from participating in the church activities that you find objectionable?” We teach our children what we believe. We discuss with our children what we believe and why we believe it. We allow for them to share their feelings, and if they have a different viewpoint, we respect it, and take note. We are VERY communicative as a family. We try to show respect for those in authority over them (and ourselves) at Church, but when we have a different viewpoint, we explain it (to our children). We do our best to teach our children to think and to question. We love the question, “why?” It’s very powerful. So much more can be learned from a thoughtful question, than an answer. As to church activities: scouts and activity days are usually enjoyed by our kids, so not too much trouble there. As for FHE, we don’t subscribe to the standard one hour on Monday evening. When our children have questioned this, we’ve explained what we believe the purpose of FHE is supposed to be and talked with them about how we try and accomplish that each day and at every opportunity. You also asked: “Or do you hide your dissenting feelings/beliefs from your children?” Nope. Although, we try to only share in quantities/amounts that they can handle. We try and recognize who each of them are, and make every effort to not overpower them with our viewpoints. We attempt to engage their minds, and not simply state our beliefs.
rollandelliott Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 8:50 AM
Even though I do not have children I would deffinetely follow my heart and tell them what I believed in. I think sometimes church culture and church doctrine get too interwoven. There is deffinetely nothing wrong with teaching your girls that they are free to become police officers, government leaders, engineers and scientists, and not just housewives.
Peace, Rolland
Elise Says:
February 18th, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Wow, Rory and Kathy, it was really interesting to read your detailed accounts of your own kids and what/how you teach them.

I’m not a parent, but I think one of the important aspects of teaching my kids someday what I do/don’t believe would be to respect (especially as they get older) their own perceptions and experiences, and try to also learn what *they* do/don’t believe and why.If they can respectfully disagree with my beliefs when they see fit, and I can respectfully disagree with their beliefs, I think I would feel a sense of success as a parent. Open, honest, and respectful communication about matters of belief, feelings, and even dissent seem like the most important goal to me.
Kevinf Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 1:10 PM
This is a somewhat painful topic for me. My wife and I are active, faithful, and very involved in the church. We also are somewhat liberal in some areas, my wife less so than me. Our youngest is 19, just preparing to go on his mission, and our oldest is in his 30’s, and currently not a believer or active at all.

We’ve tried to be open, but have always encouraged the kids to participate in all activities, even though we have issues with some things. I have some big issues with Boy Scouts, and was very open and pointed about my reservations regarding the BSA when I was called to be a scoutmaster. We have been quick to point out, perhaps often too quick, where folk doctrine and real church policy diverge. We’ve told our kids that the official church statement on the Word of Wisdom “hot drinks” is identified in the Handbook of Instructions to be “coffee and tea”, so they are all pepsi drinkers, but we also have advised them that they should not be trying to be confrontational with others who interpret that differently.

We’ve also been pretty open about historical issues and some of the contradictions there. But the bottom line is that our oldest son, a return missionary, got involved with a lot of the historical issues in the years following his mission, and has gone completely inactive, and I suspect even agnostic at this point. When I reassure him that he has read or seen nothing that I have not also seen, it only seems to widen the gulf we feel about religious feelings that I have remained active and committed, while he has turned away. Both my wife and I both wonder about where we could have gone wrong, and even when we convince ourselves that he really is exercising his free agency, we both feel differently down deep.

And yet, I can’t subscribe to some issues. Even though I did accept the calling as scoutmaster, and served to the best of my abilities for two years, I struggled with the recent request to contact our senators about the defense of marriage amendment this last year. While I accept that there are moral issues involved, there are also moral issues about legislation that some may interpret as discriminatory and use to not treat others as our brothers and sisters. It’s not just a fine line, it’s jagged, nasty and has many unsuspecting turns and twists.

I come back to what I consider my internal liahona, and strive to keep it working correctly. There are times that I have to put personal feelings on a shelf, and leave them there to deal with later, as I see much good in the church and especially it’s youth programs. I did my best as scoutmaster, but also never crossed some lines that I felt would violate that internal compass, knowing that my kids, and the other kids, would know in a heartbeat if I wasn’t true to myself, which is largely based on understanding my relationship with the Lord.

I guess, I would say that the jury is still out.
Matt Thurston Says:
February 19th, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Kevinf, I’m glad you keep commenting here.

Elder Holland gave a conference talk a few years back called “A Prayer For the Children” that addressed some of the issues in your response. I didn’t agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now. He said, among other things:

“In offering such a prayer for the young, may I address a rather specific aspect of their safety? In this I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith. To all such?¢Ç¨Äùwhom we do love and wish were more comfortable camping nearer to us?¢Ç¨ÄùI say, please be aware that the full price to be paid for such a stance does not always come due in your lifetime. No, sadly, some elements of this can be a kind of profligate national debt, with payments coming out of your children?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s and grandchildren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s pockets in far more expensive ways than you ever intended it to be.

“Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance. If in matters of faith and belief children are at risk of being swept downstream by this intellectual current or that cultural rapid, we as their parents must be more certain than ever to hold to anchored, unmistakable moorings clearly recognizable to those of our own household. It won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t help anyone if we go over the edge with them, explaining through the roar of the falls all the way down that we really did know the Church was true and that the keys of the priesthood really were lodged there but we just didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want to stifle anyone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s freedom to think otherwise. No, we can hardly expect the children to get to shore safely if the parents don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to know where to anchor their own boat.”

Nothing like having one more thing to feel guilty about. There was a Sunstone panel at the 2003 Symposium in SLC called SL03173, Panel. Where Have All the Children Gone? Keeping the Faith, and Passing It On that responded to Elder Holland’s talk. If you haven’t heard it, it is definitely “download worthy.”

Brother Holland’s talk seems to suggest that we need to “trick” our kids into becoming Believers, that we should hide our natural questioning behind a veneer of Iron Rod faith. Is truth really on that precarious a footing? His talk puts membership in the Church ahead of personal questing, or finding one’s personal testimony. There is no magic formula for turning our kids into lifelong active Mormons. Nor should it be the primary goal. The primary focus should be on the individual, not his or her place in the community. It should be on developing humanity, not conformity.

Brother Hugh B. Brown said: “I hope that you will develop the questing spirit. Be unafraid of new ideas for they are the stepping stones of progress. You will of course respect the opinions of others but be unafraid to dissent if you are informed. Now I have mentioned freedom to express your thoughts, but I caution you that your thoughts and expressions must meet competition in the marketplace of thought, and in that competition truth will emerge triumphant. Only error needs to fear freedom of expression.”

If we follow Brother Brown’s advice, hopefully our children will turn into good human beings, Mormon or otherwise. If, as you say, you were “true to [your]self… largely based on understanding [your] relationship with the Lord,” then it sounds like you are/were a model father.
Stephen Carter Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Good points, Matt.

If I were giving Holland a liberal interpretation, I could agree with him.

It seems to me that adults who are raising children should have a generative center. There should be a part of them that is nourishing both to themselves and others. If they’re always balking, never doing anything beautiful, what kind of world will our children see through us? It will be one without beauty, one that isn’t worth investing in.

If that is what Holland is talking about when he says we need to be anchored and moored, then I agree with him. (However, I admit this is a real stretch of an interpretation considering that he says we need to be anchored to the orthodox church.)

While I was at the beginning of my “downward spiral” I was finding out things that changed my whole view on life. It was very exciting to feel like I was uncovering truth. Truth was very important to me then.

But as time went on I found myself nitpicking and doubting just out of habit. If I heard it in church, it must be rife with lazy thinking and cardboard spirituality. When I realized that I was in this rut, I understood that I had taken the world apart, and that now I needed to build something of my own. I needed to generate something that nourished me now that I had uncovered the poisons. I had to create beauty. Otherwise I’d wither up and start writing conspiracy web sites.

So I put my free time into writing things I thought were worthwhile. I examined my life to find out how I could generate ideas, relationships and situations that seemed nourishing to me and to other people. I started living very deliberately.

Now it doesn’t matter to me much what stories my kids bring home from church. I’m not as stuck on truth. I don’t feel the need to say, “this is dumb and that is dumb” and make my opinion known on every church related matter. Because, it seems to me that one of the beauties of life is watching people make their own sense out of the world. The sense they make won’t be the sense I make. But it will be fun to compare notes and think about each other’s ideas. My kids don’t have to be carbon copies of me. In fact, I hope they’re different. Their convictions will be different from mine. The more the merrier. Among us we will find new things under the sun.

It’s kind of like my dad and me. My dad is a computer science genius. But I left the technology fold and pursued writing. Now my dad is interested in writing some novels, and we have lots of fun together planning and writing stuff. Because I chose to follow my bliss, I have a whole different set of skills and worldviews to add to our interactions. And it makes our experience together richer.

So, in answer to Holland, I’d say, “Yeah, we should find our bliss, we should let our light shine. And we should enjoy watching how our children find their own bliss. Our best example isn’t believing and preaching a particular set of ideas, it isn’t to be stuck in a perpetual skepticism either, rather, our best example is to be full, generative people.
Matt Thurston Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Thanks for your thoughts, Stephen. I wasn’t happy with my rather hasty comment, nor was I happy to diisagree with Holland unequivocally. As usual, you say what I feel better than I do.
Kevinf Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 1:16 PM
I can’t help looking at Elder Holland’s talk, and not agree with some aspects of it. I’ve continued to serve faithfully, kept active, kept paying my tithing, because I have felt the fruits of the gospel in my life. The best thing I can do is to keep going, because I find little outside the church that holds anywhere near the magic and peace that I feel within.

However, I see the other side. Some of you may have seen the firestorm going on over at the BBC blog about Bill Maher’s comments about some of the seamier sides of the Church’s history. While I consider the source, I remember being taught a bunch of things as a child that simply were not true, and I was taught them by my parents, by local church leaders, and by general authorities. It took me a while to get over those. What helps me is knowing that my parents were committed, active, and willing to change as doctrine became more clear.

I am sure that I will regret many decisions I have made, and some things I have taught my children, but I continue to try and fill my spiritual reservoirs, to paraphrase SWK. I continue to try and teach my children, even as they move into adulthood, now mostly by example. I still cringe when I hear some of the things my youngest son hears, but even he now has pretty good common sense at picking out the folk doctrine from the true stuff.

Not to make light of this, but a few years back, living in Davis County, Utah, our ward was being divided. Our half of the ward (very young ward, almost all families in their 20’s and 30’s) got all of the divorced single sisters. The other half got an almost exactly equal number of seminary teachers and CES employees. When someone asked me how that happened, I quipped, “We got first choice”.
Rory Swensen Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Interesting discussion – and this comment from Kevin points to where I think the real strategy for a parent should be:

I still cringe when I hear some of the things my youngest son hears, but even he now has pretty good common sense at picking out the folk doctrine from the true stuff.

If I can nurture an ability in my children to think critically, I’ll consider myself successful. They needn’t believe everything I believe, I just want them to think about why they believe the way they do. Not to accept uncritically anything anybody – including me – tells them.

One key aspect of this is not over-reacting to most of the things that come home with them – from school, from church, from the neighbors home. If they bring home a concept or idea that I cringe at, I ask them about it, I talk them through it, and usually they come to a fairly solid conclusion. If they don’t, at least they have thought through it.

I’m struggling with how best to put this into words, but I think it is important to approach these things with a positive attitude, looking for the good, giving perspective, and cultivating a thoughtful faith. Such an approach is not one of constant cynicism, nor is it one that undermines our associations, it simply develops in our young ones an ability to pick out “the folk doctrine from the true stuff”. Such an ability is critical – I wouldn’t want them to always look to me for their answers.
Rory Swensen Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 2:29 PM
One more point – our approaches need to be age-appropriate, as well. I can’t yet cultivate the critical thinking in my 4 year old that I do with my 13 year old, so I don’t cringe when my little one comes home with the folk doctrines.

His is a concrete, absolute world. I’m just living in it.
Kevinf Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Rory,

My youngest just turned 19. His world is anything but concrete.

You are absolutely correct, though. There are definitely age and maturity dependent issues involved. I still remember when I introduced my two youngest, late in their teenage years, to Eternal Man by Truman Madsen. I don’t think they got much of the King Follett discourse in seminary, and we had some very interesting discussions. They both came away saying that it all made much more sense hearing our eternal nature described that way.

On the other hand, the first word spoken by a couple of my children was “pepsi”. I had to introduce some critical thinking much earlier for them.
Chris Bigelow Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Oh, I didn’t know that little yellow house where Sunstone resides was big enough to have offices upstairs! But that does help explain all those rainbow stickers in the parking lot. Not that I would necessarily be opposed to seeing ANY–for me, it’s just a matter of balance. The rainbow stickers nonplussed me somewhat and made me wonder if I was going into a covert Mormon-GLAAD meeting, but what would REALLY have appalled me upon entering a strange building for the first time is seeing a parking lot full of Jettboy bumper stickers….

And that’s interesting, Dan, about your comments regarding the amount and nature of gay coverage in Sunstone under your and Elbert’s respective watches. I think a gay editor doing as much gay material as you have done could have marginalized and downsized Sunstone into a gay organization.

I’ve been called homophobic. I admit to being homosexuality-phobic, but I’m not homosexual-phobic, as I’ve had several gay roommates, coworkers, and family members who I didn’t feel threatened by. For me, the jury is still out on just what homosexuality means and how people should deal with it. I’m satisfied by neither the Mormon cultural status quo nor the homosexual agenda.

Didn’t Orson Scott Card flame out of Sunstone over something related to gay issues?
Ryan Jentzsch Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Paula,

During the time I worked at Sunstone finances were very tight. Sunstone’s income came largely from donations. Most magazines make money by renting out space in their magazine for advertising. There are very few if any ads in Sunstone. Also the target audience for Sunstone is very small in comparison to other magazines like Sport’s illustrated for example.

I don’t know for certain, but I suspect that Sunstone still has a very thin budget. Back in the old days the money from subscription revenue was just barely enough to cover the cost of printing, but not enough to cover the postage, office space rent, utilities and payroll. Most times we had to hold off publishing and mailing, and run a donation campaign; which from the kind hearted people was usually enough to eventually get the magazine out the door, but certainty not at a regular intervals.

I sympathize with your frustration in Sunstone’s irregular schedule and I hope my explanation will help you to understand why this may be.
DMP Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Years ago, when attending the University of Utah (I bleed RED, sir), I did a voluntary stint at the “Chrony” (The Utah Daily Chronicle). There were a number of “interesting” individuals there. But I remember overhearing part of some conversations by two co-eds. One claimed to have sung in the (Mormon) Tabernacle Choir. Both sounded like standard liberal apostates. They each in turn “dissed” different things about the (LDS) Church, members, Utah, etc.

Some weeks or months later, however, I was a bit more than stunned when one of them (a taller girl) happened to show up to an LDSSA activity. She was already to take part in the lifestyle of a supposedly good LDS girl. But, when I remembered the absolutely awful things she said to the other girl about the church, members, etc, the thought arose of itself, “What a hypocrite! Worse than that, what a traitor!”

I have/do/likely will have issues with other church members, leaders, etc. But, I grant unto them the same humaness I have and exercise. I am subject to error.

But, I also have an abiding testimony that this institution (”The Church”) is all it claims to be. It is the only church upon the whole earth with which the Lord is pleased (and has authorized). And this despite the foibles of biships and stake presidents, elders quorum presidents, etc, etc, etc. I was taken misadvantage of, I feel, in my early days, by a man who later served in one of the quorums of 70’s (in a business transaction). But what is that to me? Am I going to renounce my membership? NO! Heavens, NO!

When the children of Israel were entering into the “promised land”, their prophet-leader asked them how long would they halt between two opinions?” Either choose to serve the only true & living God, or the false gods on the other side of the ‘drink’ (in Egypt), or anywhere else. He didn’t say, as Brigham Young did, “Come hell or high council”, but, he possibly could have (had he chose).

We had a bishop’s counselor who outright embarassed my wife as a counselor in Relief Society some years ago, when she needed a key, and the stake was supposedly limiting those who had them, because of some problems that were being had in other buildings in our “FM Group”. The bishop, apparently, was much more onerous in this area than were others. The RS president was ditsy, and many of the responsibilities for actually getting RS work done fell to my wife. He castigated her over her visiting teaching record. (We found out not much later that his Home Teaching record was far worse). My wife knows now what to do in such a situation.

But, SO WHAT? The Church is true, as trite as that phrase may seem to most or all of you. I view it to be not only genuine, but genuinely important.

What do you think is “folk” stuff versus whatever you consider to be “real”. Polygamy? Polyandry? Danites? Mountain Meadows Massacre? What? DNA and American Natives? Book of Mormon and archeology? Tell me, what PROBLEMS do YOU have with any rumors, stories, or ‘whatevers’ regarding “The Church”? Because, once you, or anyone else cares to lay down a litany of ‘whatevers’ regarding the Church, the Prophet (JS or GBH or anyone in between), whether the First Manifesto, Second Manifesto, Third Manifesto, Blacks and the Priesthood?¢Ç¨Äùyou name it, I have a litany of questions for you and/or anyone else to answer that should be as hard, as embarassing, as anything you can bring up or throw at “The Church”.

If you have doubts, either study, live the gospel, pray until you resolve them?¢Ç¨Äùor “get out”! Don’t pretend that you are LDS, when you are traitors in training, or like Jannes and Jambres withstanding Moses!

I have a brother-in-law who is a practicing homosexual, and an RM. He claims a lot of things. And, he has a lot of good qualities. And “…inasmuch as men (straight, homosexual, or castrated) do good, they shall in no wise lose their reward.” But, on the other hand, we read where “they have rewarded themselves evil.”

What do we have now in the Church, a bunch of wafflers? A bunch of whiners and complainers? I have issues over how the Sunday School program is treated (or neglected) in many wards and branches. I have found that many Church members have many misconceptions about many things in Church history, doctrine, etc. But I have had in the past also. And gradually, bit by bit, line upon line, here a little, and there a little, I have been able to clear up in my database (mind) and in my perception of things things the way I thought they were with things that I believe and hope are much closer to how they actually were. And, so what? I still find bazillions of things to be incredible and miraculous regarding The Prophet (Joseph Smith), his successors as Church Presidents, and much, much more.

I am often frustrated more with myself and what I do (and don’t do), far more than I am with anyone or anything else out there.

Remember Guenevere’s “‘umilite’” (Hu-mi-li-te) she advised to Lancelot? Well, we could all use a huge dose of that between us. Myself certainly included.

But, goodness gracious, have we lost our way? Is the Church NOT true, because it doesn’t fit a lot of misfits?

Adapt. Make do with, or do without, as President Kimball use to throw out the adage oft-repeated during WWII. Figure out how to make BSA either work for your sons, or help your sons to fare as well in that organization as possible.

And what about holding the priesthood? If the Church is true, and is led by God, and he deems that only men should have it, what, are you going to fight against God?

I was raised with six sisters. I have seven daughters. And I have 11 sister-in-laws. And far, far more nieces and grandnieces. NONE of my sisters, sister-in-laws, daughters, nieces or grandnieces are disadvantaged in the least regarding not being able to hold the priesthood. By golly, what we need is not men to match our mountains, as much as we need men to match our WOMEN! Why cry and complain and be distraught over not holding the priesthood. Hopefully, you don’t have to shave every morning. I do!

My wife told me last week, “I know, you wish you had periods too!” Of course I don’t. Women have a lot of problems in life. Men do too! Women, as you know, also live longer! Is that a plus to you, or a minus? Our stake financial clerk, who is the former bishop of a singles ward, an old time neighbor and friend, to whom I home teach, told me about meeting a woman in Ecuador on his mission, who was well over 100 years old. (Her brother was slightly older). When he & his companion visited her and asked her why she thought she had lived to be so old, she replied, “Because God hates me. He’s punishing me!”

Well, perhaps he is! Maybe this male God has something against women.

Certainly, it follows the law of expectations. Just like the guy who received one talent (in the Parable of the Talents/or Parable of the Money Managers, as I view it), he knew that his master (client) was a ‘hard master’, reaping where he hadn’t strawed, etc, so he dug a whole in the ground (stuck it under his mattress, or threw it into a safe) and gave his master (client) back what he had given him (with no increase). (Gee, that’s where I would want to put $50,000 or so, is in a bank that pays NO INTEREST)!

I’d fire such an inept banker as that one too! But he was treated, ultimately, the way he expected to be treated (because he acted foolishly, like a real knit wit. But he who was given the sum of 2 talents, as well as he who was given 5 talents, also, each received according to THEIR expectations. But they did what they were suppose to do. The doubled their clients money! And he rewarded them both most handsomely!

But, you’ll notice, that that “money manager” played it “safe”. Just like the farmer who didn’t put his seeds in the ground so he wouldn’t lose them to rain, frost, wind or tornadoes, he (the farmer), ended up with what he began with (but that would not be enough to feed oneself or the world with, now would it)? (Life or ‘mortality’ is full of risks, going all directions).

If your expectations are such that the Church, and many (if not all) in it are going to mess up (have messed up, or are now messing up), then why do you stay? Have you know belief in it? Don’t you believe it is what it claims to be? Why pussy foot? Why pretend?

The train leaves tomorrow for some. But for others, it left town months or years ago.

“66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away?

68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

69 And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?”

?¢Ç¨ÄùJohn 6:66-70

I believe that not only are we testing things, but we are being tested. Are we honest, in all ways?¢Ç¨Äùnot just “intellectually”, but all ways. I can imagine Judas Iscariot blogging and saying things similar to what I read on church blogs. I can also see him doing some things he shouldn’t do.

Don’t be a Judas! It make seem intellectually ‘chic’! But the devil does not support those who heed him, in the end.

?¢Ç¨ÄùDMP
DMP Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 9:08 PM
When I said, “Have you know belief in it?”, I meant to write, “Have you NO belief in it?
LauraC Says:
February 20th, 2007 at 11:07 PM
DMP -

I’m glad you have found a way to feel comfortable enough in the Church that you are able to explain to the rest of us exactly how it works for you. Perhaps in your surety and comfort with so much of the gospel you have forgotten that not everyone has been given the gift of knowledge, or even easy-to-find faith.

Your tone, particularly some of your admonishments to take it or leave it [the church], has cut quite deep for me, someone who is a lifelong member who has struggled and continues to wrestle with my own soul, even as prophets of old have wrestled with angels, in trying to find balance between my very personal and loving relationship with my Heavenly Father and Jesus and my sometimes rough relationship with various aspects of the church.

For instance, in my personal experience, God is no respecter of persons, male or female, bond or free, sinner or saint. Yet, in some ways there are programs in the church and, yes, even doctrines that either now or in the past have not been in line with my understanding about God. Every time my personal experience with God is in conflict with my personal experience with the Church/church teachings, I feel parts of me being squished and chipped away. As I struggle to come to terms with the differences, sometimes the growth is extremely painful.

Would to God that I could find answers that would preserve my children from experiencing similar pains. Is there a way that I can ease the burden of their developing testimonies? How do I help them to see past the klutzy critics of my faith and find the Light of Christ in everyone?

And where I have huge concerns about Church programs, how do I find balance between my concerns and my children’s need for spiritual growth? Elder Holland encouraged us not to share our doubts with our children by keeping our tents away from the edges. But if I don’t express my doubts to my children (when they are at ages appropriate to understand and consider those doubts themselves), am I doing them a disservice? We have the same DNA and the same living environment; they are likely to have the same kinds of questions I do. If I live my life hiding my doubts and questions, not sharing with them my own coping skills, then are they doomed to suffer doubly – once on their own, wrestling with my demons and once again when they learn that I wrestled with those demons once and, instead of arming them appropriately, I let them suffer the consequences on their own?

In other words, if I set an example of no questioning, although I have questions, do I set my children up for failure because I’m presenting them a (false) idealized version of belief, faith and action?

Jana, I don’t have answers for your questions, but I do share many of your same concerns, and wonder if I can encourage my sons to belong to an organization that treats their mother and sisters with less respect than it does their father. How soon do I point out to them the fact that there are few, if any, photos of women in their Primary room classes (not even photos of the General Primary Presidency)? How do I convince them that boys are not more important than girls when their Primary lessons on Priesthood preparation come up? How many times do I have to deal with my teenage daughter coming home from church in tears because, yet once again, the YM are going camping or hiking or boating and the girls are specifically uninvited? How many times to I have to de-fuse the situation when she comes home from a lesson where she’s told, once again, that she is responsible for boys’ and men’s thoughts, and can assert this mind-control merely with the way she dresses (even to the point of whether or not she is wearing nylons or has more than one set of earrings)?

Good luck with your kids, and hang in there – you’re certainly a thoughtful adult, so they’ll probably follow in your footsteps.
kevinf Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 12:38 AM
DMP,

So now, I am a traitor in training, and a waffler at that. Sorry to hear you slam us like that. I’ve served as a gospel doctrine teacher more times than I can count, as an EQ counselor, a HP group leader, scoutmaster, young men’s president twice, bishop, and now on the high council. If you like, I’ll give you the name of my stake president so you can report me.

As to my kids, I’ve had 5 of them serve missions. Two so far are married in the temple, a third just got engaged, and my youngest is getting ready to go on his mission. My concerns are for my two oldest boys, one who served an honorable mission, and one who chose not to, and both are currently inactive. I wish I had your surety as to why that happened. It certainly wasn’t because I was a traitor to my church, or that I waffled.

As to folk doctrines that I have issues with, I’ll just give you three. One, that blacks were cursed to come through the lineage of Cain, and thus were unworthy to hold the priesthood or obtain temple ordinances until 1978. Reality, we don’t know for sure why the priesthood was withheld for so many years, but it becomes clear with the the 1978 revelation, that any of our explanations are just that, ours, and not the Lord’s. Two, that you can’t be a democrat and be a good Mormon. See Harry Reid, Hugh B. Brown, the Matheson family, Ted Wilson, at least two of my former bishops, several mission presidents I have known, etc. Three, for the really silly, that there were no rainbows before the end of the flood, as it had never rained before. That last one was taught to my two oldest kids in Seminary in Utah.

I have found that not everything in my life has gone as planned. I’ve been blessed with six wonderful children, a beautiful wife who has loved me for over 30 years despite my traitorous waffling ways, and a powerful testimony of the gospel, the atonement of Christ, and the reality of revelation, both through the prophets, and also of a more personal kind. I try to cut some slack for my friends who have doubts, and also the ones who never do.

Ten years from now, I hope to be on a mission with my wife somewhere, and that by then, or maybe through that service, I’ll finally get to see my two oldest sons come back. Meanwhile, I wonder, I ponder, I pray, and I serve. That removes some doubts, but it doesn’t always answer my questions. It does, however, give me the faith to continue. I hope you can find some healing for the anger you have shown here. If nothing else, I have learned that the Atonement allows me to get over the things I have no control over, and keep in the faith.
Kevinf Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 9:39 AM
DMP,

I responded late last night after several hours of study for a project at work. I may have been a little short. Let me go back to what I referred to earlier as my internal compass or liahona. It’s something that I refer to often as the world presses in, and helps me to keep going. It also reminds me that I am here to serve others, something that I am always trying to measure up to, and worry about my personal performance.

Helaman 5:12

And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall.

That’s where I return to, and find peace. I hope and pray you can too.
Elise Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I was given the “take it or leave it” advice by someone very important and influential in my life when I was about 20. It had not occurred to me before that suggestion that ?¢Ç¨?ìleave it?¢Ç¨¬ù was really a choice, and the way it was presented ?¢Ç¨Äú and the way the advice was perceived by my 20 year old mind ?¢Ç¨Äú caused me to feel such an intense sense of dichotomy that my rather immediate choice was to leave it. I did so, too abruptly and without enough thought. It took me a few years to realize that my options had not been so black and white and that my choice was made with too much haste.

There are many, many parts of the church that I can not simply leave, for several reasons: 1) they are a part of my heritage. 2) they are a part of my upbringing and deeply engrained. 3) they are beautiful expression of a supreme being?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interaction with us. 4) I still believe them.

There are also parts that I do not believe, that I find rather ugly, and that I no longer want as a part of my heritage.

If only it ?¢Ç¨?ìtake it or leave it?¢Ç¨¬ù were possible, DMP, my life would be much, much, much, much more simple. Instead, I find myself now trying to figure out how to re-incorporate certain parts of Mormonism back into my life without violating my own integrity by accepting and/or participating those parts which I feel are wrong. There are other churches that make this process easier, because members have more encouragement to develop their own personal set of beliefs within certain frameworks. While this is true in theory of the LDS church, it is not practiced openly ?¢Ç¨Äú I feel that members are encouraged more to accept a very defined, specific set of beliefs that go far beyond basic framework and intrude on even insignificant parts of a persons?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ life.

So as far as the original question goes (sorry if the above was a bit of a thread-jack), I hope that, as a parent, I will have developed a strong framework that I can teach my children and then allow them to build up their own personal beliefs, choices, personalities, and life around it. And although it must be very painful for parents when their children choose instead to dispose of the entire framework and construct their own, I hope I can be respectful and do my best to find the similarities in their framework and mine and see what I can learn from them, too.
Elise Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Oh, and the people that waffle, address important issues through complaints, and talk intellectually about religion while incorporating a quest for faith – those people are the kind that made me realize the black-and-white, “take-it-or-leave-it” choice doesn’t work. Without them, I think I would have never re-visited or re-analyzed my choice to leave it.

I want to stress to my kids someday that they don’t need to think black-and-white about religious-type things, but that they can always ask questions without fear and that I will always do my best to help them discover the answers. I don’t want to be unapproachable as a parent because my future kids think I won’t try to reason and discuss difficult questions. If they approach me with a serious problem with an aspect of belief (as opposed to just being lazy or rebellious), then I will probably feel they are old enough to hear my concerns, objections, and even dissent from whatever aspect of religion is being inspected. I really agree with the age-appropriate cautions/thoughts mentioned above.
Kevinf Says:
February 21st, 2007 at 2:15 PM
Elise,

Your post reminded me of the often quoted statement by Joseph Smith, “I teach them correct principles, and the govern themselves”.

While I believe the church actually is getting better at accepting diversity in our congregations, there seems to be a strong sense of doing what everyone else is doing, and a striving for uniformity. That’s not all bad, but I know the single sisters in our ward struggle feeling accepted all the time. There is a need to be one with the Saints, but that, in my view, does not require us to be indistinguishable as individuals.

Good luck with building that framework. Grace really is an operative principle in our lives, and helps us to make up where we fall short.
The Poptart ---Tami Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 4:16 PM
I think the Church is so unenlightened with the boy/girl character development department.
Rewarding the boys with ceremonies and sqat for the girls—no GIRL POWER GIGS.
Just pink flowers, banal poems, and cheesy syrupy music at that girl night—-I forgot the name. Standards, or Don’t Touch My Petals or something.

However, I will relay a few musings regarding this subject if I may.

Years ago while working with a bright feminist male manager in Scottsdale AZ, we conversed frequently about the church. He was repulsed by the Mesa Republicans yet wanted to understand more about LDS people and the policies. Intriqued by my membership—- he thought they had a voodoo hex on my mind…..lol (they did—I am now de-toxed)

He stated he could never belong to a church that withheld the priesthood or so-called appointed callings from his two daughters. How could he explain to his daughters the priesthood was available to MEN only. He was a modern man teaching his daughters to be equal to men, socially, economically, and politically (mind you they were not femi-nazis- they were lovely sweet girls).

That got me thinking about how I would explain it to my own daughters if I ever had any.
Then I remembered the discrepancies between the boys and girls when I was growing up.

The boy scouts/explorers in my ward in Reno did the coolest activities. They had contracts with all the casinos and other businesses to place American flags in front of their locations every holiday. The scouts/explorers made so much money they rented a schooner or tall ship from somewhere off the west coast and sailed to different islands—I am not making this up. They did other activities of that nature. Some helicopter camping thing in Canada too.

AND what did the girls do? Knit and crocheted pot holders! Wrote a description of our eternal mate in some flowery journal. What a rip off!!! grrrr.

Yes I know domestic skills—however when I am decorating that wretched ugly cultural hall for a ward event and stringing rope to elegantly drape material on — I wish I knew those rope tying skills that we didn’t learn as Beehivers. And how to change a tire! And I know you men learned how to
re-fold a map—-we Laurels missed that very useful task!

And yes Jana—I created a Babysitting Kit. How about a Career Kit? And most importantly teach the young women how to speak in a normal humanoid woman voice—not a squeaky Primary Teacher’s voice. We may have to present something in front of business colleagues one day…..

Idealistically I desire the LDS church to be forefront with this issue–can’t the The Brethren contact the Covey/Phil McGraw types to implement some changes and get hip? (not that I endorse those dudes —just used their names for an example). I think the programs are somewhat important because I have friends in split and one parent family situations and their children need more interaction than just one parent can provide.

As much as Primary and Mutual can be hokey and some of the leaders ineffective and jerky (at times not always), I have wonderful memories, learned many skills and developed great friendships from those church programs. I don’t think all the kids are too warped by the system. So to conclude—I feel the inequality of the youth programs could be greatly improved between the sexes.
Thomas Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:48 PM
Stephen,

“When I realized that I was in this rut, I understood that I had taken the world apart, and that now I needed to build something of my own.”

I don’t know why, but that struck me as one of the wisest things I’ve ever heard.
Thomas Says:
February 22nd, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Chris,

“I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve been called homophobic. I admit to being homosexuality-phobic, but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not homosexual-phobic”

You’re not any manner of -phobic. Although comparing garden-variety political enthusiasts to totalitarians should have gone out with the late senator from Wisconsin, the fact is that using the language of mental illness — “phobia” — to describe the thinking of one’s political opponents has parallels with Soviet psychiatry that are just too ironic not to point out.
The Poptart ---Tami Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 AM
Regarding my comments, this a retort from a friend of mine in Houston –(cheeky monkey):

So let me quickly make a comment to you as a mother with a son who just became an Eagle Scout.

When Claire and Paige receive their Young Womanhood Recognition awards, I plan on sending out an announcement to let everyone know just like I did with Matthew. We will then have a party of some sort to celebrate and I will submit an article about them to the paper. Shawn Johnson who made a board with all Eagle Scouts listed on it said he would make one for the girls, too. Our state representative gave the Eagle Scouts a flag that had flown over the state capital so maybe I could ask Hillary Clinton to have all the female senators sign a potholder and send it to my girls! Any other suggestions?!?–ghh
Thomas Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Re: “take it or leave it”

People who don’t “take it [all] or leave it” are trying to hold fast to that which is good about the Church. The Church is not, despite what anyone says, all true or all a fraud. Christ is still the Son of God, and “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings, ye are only in the service of your God” is still true whether or not there were really Jaredites.

The “Mormonism as metaphor” may not work for everyone, and it may for many be a way station to another faith — but for most people, it’s simply not possible to pull up stakes and move closer to Elder Holland’s campfire — at least not without an unhealthy dose of pretense. The evidence is what it is. Some people are convinced one way, some are convinced the other, and some genuinely find it ambiguous enough to call their decision to choose one side or the other “faith.” But for those who are honestly convinced that the evidence against the Church’s claims are stronger than the evidence for, and who haven’t received any unmistakeable spiritual witness to trump the evidence of reason, “faith” isn’t an option — any more than I could have “faith” that if I drop a baseball under ordinary conditions, it won’t fall downwards.

I suspect the Brethren’s recent emphasis on “it’s all or nothing” may have something in common with the warning on packages of Q-Tips not to stick the things into your ears. Of course everyone knows that’s exactly what most people will do — that’s why they buy the silly things. But the Q-Tip people can’t exactly say that, because they’d then be liable for all the injuries for everyone who wasn’t smart enough to keep from jabbing a Q-Tip all the way through his brain.

Similarly, the Brethren can’t exactly endorse the “faithful unbeliever” position without doing serious damage to the organization of the Church, and to the developing faith of millions of people. At the same time, I suspect they’re at least somewhat happy to take whatever loyalty and dedication they can get. If people want to utilize the Church as just a good church, as opposed to the Kingdom of God — well, the Church still gets to count them as members, collect at least some tithing and offerings, employ their often abundant service, and enjoy the credit these people often are to the Church in the eyes of society — just as the Q-Tip people are as happy to sell a Q-Tip to stick in your ear as for swabbing a wound or making a school crafts project.

For some people, something less than a regulation Testimony is as good as it’s going to get. And it would be nice if some people would stop trying to be plus royaliste que le roi, recognize that this isn’t as easy as it looks, and would you please stop trying to establish your iron rod bona fides by taking gratuitous whacks at people’s spiritual lives when it’s really none of your bloody business.
Kevinf Says:
February 23rd, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I am feeling guilty now about letting DMP and his “take it or leave it” post get to me. I guess I am still learning how not to react when I fell someone has gone on the attack, so if I responded badly, I’m sorry.

My point in my posts, is that it is possible to have doubts, to see things in shades of gray, and still be involved, have a testimony, and enjoy the fruits of the gospel. I wish I could say that everyone else has the same “big tent” mentality. However, I try to cut everybody else as much slack as I can, and hope that they do the same for me.

I had one daughter, and it is different for them in a lot of ways. My daughter never felt particularly unfairly treated, but we had lots of other extracurricular things for her that seemed to keep her very busy and happy (ballet for 10 years, soccer, volleyball, basketball). She also, though, has been a very strong and independent spirit on her own. Suffice it to say that her father in law, a man with very black & white views of gospel issues, finds her a frustrating and not easily intimidated daughter in law. The first time he tried to hold a family council, and proceeded to tell her and her husband how they should vote, my daughter cut him off quickly.

A good friend of mine spent several years in Missouri, and served in the bishopric there. They decided that the girls in primary needed something comparable to the cub scout program, and so the ward sponsored a 4H group for the girls 8 to 12. This was before the activity days program. Most importantly, they just went ahead with implementing it, and did not go to the stake president for permission. Once he saw the results, he had no issues with it.

I spent a Wednesday evening last summer teaching the Laurels in our ward, at the request of the YW president, how to do minor car maintenance and repair, including changing tires, checking and adding oil, looking for worn belts, etc.

I realize that these things don’t address all of the issues, but I think there are some creative means of trying to be flexible and leveling the playing field. We just need to cut each other a little more slack. BH Roberts once said, quoted here as best as I can remember, that we need “in truly important things, unity; in unimportant things, freedom; and in all things, charity”.

I’ve tried to keep these words in mind, especially the last part.
riverstone Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 12:41 AM
“In this I speak carefully and lovingly to any of the adults of the Church, parents or otherwise, who may be given to cynicism or skepticism, who in matters of whole-souled devotion always seem to hang back a little, who at the Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s doctrinal campsite always like to pitch their tents out on the periphery of religious faith……

No, we can hardly expect the children to get to shore safely if the parents don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t seem to know where to anchor their own boat.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I want my children to know that my boat is anchored to Christ. I really get frustrated when I hear quotes like the one above, in entirety, because it is misleading and leads to much suffering especially for those who are trying the most earnestly to find God in thier lives. I don’t know of any two people on earth who have pitched their tent closer to the Church, it’s doctrines, practices, council… than my parents. They also happen to be very Christ-like and have truly given their whole souls to living the gospel. So here they are, the parents of ten children, grandparents of twenty-five and growing, serving a local service mission so they can care for ailing parents, and they still are made to feel through this kind of teaching that they somehow didn’t do enough. Actually, if my parents had been a bit more flexible in allowing questions and breathing room to grow, I and at least one other sibling may have been able to find a place that works for us in the church. I have tried for years to stay with the church and make it work in a conscienable way. Finally, I realized through God’s help, and atleast for right now, continuing in the church is harming both my spirituality and the spiritual growth of the family I have started with my husband. I have felt good about this decision except when it comes to being completely honest about my life with my parents. My mom already doesn’t know how to act around me because she knows I seriously question things about the church. In one conversation with her she broke down crying, blaming herself form my questions. Trying to figure out where she went wrong, what more she could have done.
This is where the pitching a tent close to the church falls apart for me. I know it hasn’t worked for me. Until unforseen experiences in my life forced me to ask questions, I was as devout as my parents. I served a mission, graduated from BYU, married in the temple, served as relief society president, I even worked as a temple worker for several years when trying to start a family. I was very obedient, my parents have always been very obedient. What happened? I sorted out the tangle of rope attatched to anchors and found the one to love of God and to Christ and his teachings to be the only one that remained for me after my struggles. I thank God every day for parents who were a firm example of anchoring themselves to Christ. The difference between me and them now is that where they perceive only one anchor, I percieve at least two, which while crossing over many times are not attatched to the same rope.
I certainly don’t blame my parents for my anguish, but I will also not teach my children to pitch their tents right next to leaders of any group who insist on conformity and obedience over personal revelation and individual spiritual journeys. I feel that being honest with our children about our own journey is part of helping them deal with life’s unpredictable curve balls. I miss many things about being a full part of the church. I wish things could have been different, but then again I am immensely grateful for how my life has turned out. In the end I believe there is not an only true path. I believe the true path is found in following your heart as it leads to love of God and all living things. In other words my advice is to listen to your heart to know how to talk to your children.
Rick Jepson Says:
February 24th, 2007 at 4:29 PM
I’m not sure that homosexuals are “political opponents.”

And I’m sure the usage of “phobia” was not meant as a self diagnosis of actual psychosis. In fact, most of the everyday usage of “-phobe”, “-phile” and, oddly enough, “-oholic” can’t be found in the DSM-IV at all.

Peace out,

-Rick “the chocoholic carnoholic Mountaindewoholic bibliophile with excessive hydrophobic midline deposits” Jepson
john f. Says:
February 26th, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Re # 11, Rory stated “our approaches need to be age-appropriate, as well. I can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t yet cultivate the critical thinking in my 4 year old that I do with my 13 year old, so I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t cringe when my little one comes home with the folk doctrines.

His is a concrete, absolute world. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m just living in it.”

This seems to be actually the same thing that Elder Holland is saying in his talk — I mean, exactly the same thing. Thus, if one agrees with Rory’s statement, can one logically at the same time disagree with Elder Holland’s talk on any basis other than just that it was Elder Holland who said it and therefore it must have a sinister overtone?
Times & Seasons » Sun and Stone Says:
February 26th, 2007 at 10:17 PM
[...] Dan Wotherspoon posted some thoughts at Sunstone Blog, in response to criticisms of Sunstone’s…. He wrote that “remaining true to Sunstone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s core mission, to its commitment to faith and [...]
Diane Says:
March 4th, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Riverstone,
I am grateful for your comment, this is my first time to this website, I haave been struggling with all of the conformity, I have often wondered how a church that claims to be the only true church of Christ, can be quite un-Christian at times. I have never wavered on my testimony of Christ and our Heavenly Father, I believe in His atoning sacrifice and His teachings. I don’t, however, believe everything the church or it’s leaders say.
Thank You for putting my thoughts into words, and I will strive to build something beautiful from what I believe in.
Mark N. Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I think this is the only case I know of a person becoming an atheist because an angel told him there was no God.

Well, if anyone would know about the existence (or lack thereof) of a certain supernatural being, it would be another supernatural being, right?
tgm Says:
March 7th, 2007 at 12:26 PM
I am not sure by reading this blog if I belong to the same LDS church that some of you do. Boy, I am think ing that those who grow up close to nature and on a farm get a good base for what life is about and how basic the gospel is. I am a woman, a convert of 20+ years and live up in the great NW in farm country. My church experience has never left me feeling discriminated against because of my gender. Perhaps my experience differs because I live in an area where Mormons are a minority and our wards are more diverse? Could our “church” experiences be more related to our geographic area than one would think? Could the SL valley be so inbred with heritage that it is suffocating the ability for personal growth and testimony? Have all the academics, affluence and distance from the soil caused this discontent? I am surely not saying that my experience in the church has been perfect and that I have related to everyone I ever associated with in the church and that I agreed from day one with every point of doctine.. Quite the contrary. All I can say is line upon line, here a little there a little. It will take and lifetime and then some to understand have a testimony of all doctine. But as Elder Holland says the closer I pitch my tent the easier it will be for me in the eternal scheme of things. As the story says “when the boy was asked why he fell out of bed he answered that it was because he wasn’t in far enough”. So how far in is far enough?

When I was investigating the church I attended a testimony meeting and took notice that while the members were up baring their souls and testimonies that people weren’t paying attention to them and one woman was even doing a crossword puzzle. This was grounds for my not joining the church I exclaimed! How disrepecttful these people were! A friend pointed out to me that the “church” (members) had it’s flaws but that the gospel was true and that made sense to me and I did join the church and have found that to be true and I even fall into the category as a member with flaws.

The comments concerning the YM and Priesthood having richer experiences are quite the contrary to my experience. I always felt quite bad for my boys because their Priesthood experiences were weak in comparison to those of my daughter. In fact the YW in our stake are given every opportunity to learn all the survival skills (mountain and life) skills that the young men are given, but from first hand experience I saw that many young women did not take an interest in learning all their “knots”. While there were many capable women in our ward who did not work outside of the home I was called to be the RS president while pursuing a career in local government. Could this have been on oversight by the Lord? the Bishop?

My husband struggles “living “the gospel but serves devotedly because he knows the gospel is true.. He is in no way an intellectual and is devoid of much doctrinal knowledge. Is he any less a member than any one of you who intellectualizes your way through life in the church ? He is pretty much a what you see is what you get kind of guy and when he bears his testimony it is not flowered with doctrine, it is just his faith that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the BOM is the word of God and that we have a prophet on the earth today and there won’t be many who hear his testimony and not know this man believes it, he may not know much else, but this much he knows and I think that is just enough. I struggle to not judge him for his lack of desire to increase his knowledge and lengthen his stride, but God knows his heart and if I am honest I do too.

God Bless you all in your journey through this life, try not to over analyze it and see the big picture and we will all be just fine and as a friend once told me “don’t sweat the small stuff”.
By Common Consent » Making Adjustments Says:
April 11th, 2007 at 2:55 AM
[...] a limited infiltration of ancient America by Near Eastern migrants. Metcalfe, Southerton, and Vogel have cried foul over this paradigm shift: Southerton, for example, has blasted the uber-apologetics that he claims [...]
Nick Literski Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I’m not so sure the LDS church is hanging its hopes on this “Fourth Path.” While the old advice of “get married and everything will be okay” has officially been discontinued, young gay men are still receiving this message, whether directly or by implication. In fact, the specific advice, per Dallin Oaks, is that one should not “deceive” a potential spouse regarding this matter in courtship.

Just a few weeks ago, an organization of LDS psychotherapists held their annual convention in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building at Salt Lake City. Given the ownership of the building, I think it’s fair to reason that the LDS church approved of this organization, and of the presentations planned. In one of these presentations, three young married men were trotted out in front of the audience, openly acknowledging that they were gay. Each of these young men was careful to point out that he revealed his orientation to his spouse prior to marriage. Each claimed that they were following the LDS plan to create eternal families, etc., etc. Each expressed confidence that their marriages would be successful, in spite of acknowledged challenges in regard to physical intimacy.

I think we will see more and more of this. Of course, the LDS church likely doesn’t have many (or any?) 60 year old gay married men, who can or will stand up and tell the world that they’ve been successfully married for 40 years. The LDS church has to rely on relative newlyweds, which in my opinion, is quite telling. My first response to these testimonies is always “let’s follow up ten years from now.” In the meantime, the LDS church is likely to point to these young men as examples of “the lord’s way,” and make those in your “Fourth Path” feel inadequate.
Rob Osborn Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:44 AM
One thing I find quite disturbing is that somehow in our society it is getting more and more commonplace to believe that fantasies and passions of the mind outside of a marriage personal relationship is not sin. For instance- A man who is married and sealed in the temple who comes out later and says that he is attracted to other men is in my opinion in a state of sin. Look at it another way- Take another married man in the temple who comes out years later and states that he is attracted to small children or other married women- same thing, sin!

Sexuality is a passion that everyone has to learn to control and bridal. Everyone at some point goes through a stage of sexual fantasy immoral behavior wheather they play it out or not. It may just be a fleeting moment of exposure to pornography or seeing someone naked but everyone has to learn to control the impulse of the driven physical body as it is exposed and is arroused. People who are in control of that passion who are married are people who recognize weakness of the flesh and also know that certain thoughts and actions are to be used only within the confines of their spousal relationship. Any feelings of attraction outside of their spousal relationship should be avoided. I also think it is safe to say that we can all admire beauty and purity of both sexes without crossing the line of attraction. I would find it somewhat difficult to be married to a wife who was more attracted to other women, children, men or animals over myself!

Because same gender attraction is sexual in nature I believe that persuing that attraction in ones mind only leads to heartache and eternal misery. There will be no same sex marriages that will endure the eternities!
Tom Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Nick,
I’m not sure that it’s safe to assume that either the group of psychotherapists or the content of their meeting has official sanction of the LDS Church, not unless all meetings that take place in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building are vetted and approved by Church leadership. Do you know if this is the case?
anon-for-now-please Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Matt, many faithful fully-participating heterosexual saints remain single and celibate throughout all or most of their mortal lives. Your fascination and “head spinning” that homsexual saints would or could remain faithful and celibate seems to ignore, and perhaps condescend or insult, the many faithful, single and celibate heterosexuals in the church, many of whom have little or no hope for a celestial marriage in this life. Many worthy sisters are kept from marriage by the mere statistic of not enough faithful LDS men to go around. Demographics may also keep faithful brethren from finding suitable wives in the church. Many singles, men and women, are physically, emotionally or spiritually “broken” to the point where marriage is no longer a viable option. Such brokenness may be result of sin, but often it is not or is through no fault of the individual. Therefore, regardless of how one views homosexual orientation, as either something that needs to be fixed, or as a natural state/condition, the lifelong celibacy and faithfullness expected of homosexual single saints is no more than what is asked of many heterosexual single saints.

Nick, wasn’t there an interview between one of the church’s PR people and Elder Oaks and another GA, in which Elder Oaks formally negated the church’s previous admonition to “just get married anyway” ? I remember reading it at lds.org in one of the news sections.
Nick Literski Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Rob,
First, the LDS church has been rather firm lately, in teaching that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, sinful. Rather, the LDS church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. That said, I’m not sure your expressed views are representative of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You’re welcome to believe as you choose, of course.

I’m not entirely sure why you feel the need to bring pedophilia or beastiality into this discussion. Neither are related to the topic at hand, i.e. homosexuality.

I’m also not sure I understand your reasoning in the final paragraph of your post. You point out that homosexual attraction is “sexual in nature,” as if heterosexual attraction is not. Then, if I understand you correctly, you suggest that having homosexual thoughts “only” leads to “heartache and eternal misery.” Why do you believe this, Rob? Do you have experience in having homosexual thoughts? Have you conducted some sort of study, wherein you followed the life experiences of individuals who had homosexual thoughts, and observed that they had “heartache and eternal misery?” As a gay man who certainly has had “homosexual thoughts,” I can tell you that the only “heartache and eternal misery” I ever experienced was the inevitable result of trying to be something and someone that I wasn’t.
JrL Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 PM
A woman who speaks with great insight and feeling about her choice of what you describe as the “Fourth Path” blogs at http://how-i-deal.blogspot.com/
Nick Literski Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Tom,
I do not have definite knowledge that all meetings held within LDS church headquarters buildings have the express approval of LDS church leadership. Considering, however, that even the use of stake centers must have the approval of the respective stake presidencies, I very much doubt that LDS headquarters facilities are granted without actual approval of the proposed use.

Can you imagine, for example, the LDS church allowing a Sunstone Symposium to be held in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building?
Kevinf Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Regarding this 4th way,

I have anecdotal evidence from a Bishop acquaintance of mine that in his urban singles ward, he has called celibate gay men to leadership positions in his ward (ie, EQ presidencies, etc), with the understanding that their orientation does not make them unworthy. Rather, it is in acting on those impulses that worthiness is violated. He has stressed that for gay men, the chastity requirements are the same as for single heterosexual men in his ward.

This started a few years ago, but I don’t have a recent update on how it has worked. I suspect there are other examples of this out there.
Nick Literski Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:35 PM
“Nick, wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t there an interview between one of the church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s PR people and Elder Oaks and another GA, in which Elder Oaks formally negated the church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s previous admonition to ?¢Ç¨?ìjust get married anyway?¢Ç¨¬ù ? I remember reading it at lds.org in one of the news sections.”

Yes, hence my comment that such advice had been “officially” discontinued. The fact remains, however, that this message is still implicity (and sometimes even explicitly, in spite of leaders’ counsel) given to gay LDS men. Eternal marriage is taught as the only path to eternal happiness. Therefore, gay LSD men (many of whom are closeted, of course) end up marrying, in order to fulfill what they think deity demands of them.
Nick Literski Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Ahem….”gay LDS men….” Sorry!
Matt Thurston Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Nick #1 and others, I’m not sure the Church is hanging its hopes on the Fourth Path either, but given the Oaks/Wickman interview a few months back, and the implication that heterosexual marriage is now discouraged, it would seem that that is where their hopes lie by default. Although I’m sure they hold out hope that some kind of therapy/cure can help homosexuals find love and fulfillment in traditional heterosexual marriages, as your example of the recent convention held at the JS Building at BYU suggests.

I wonder why the Church hasn’t been more vocal in their support of gays on the Fourth Path (or Third Path for that matter), given what is at stake, to say nothing of the love and support these gay Mormons will need to accomplish this daunting path/goal? Why no talks in conference about extending love and support to single, gay, and committed Mormons? Why no lessons in PH/RS outlining the current LDS position on homosexuality? Is the greater Mormon Church even aware of these subtle changes? Why not profile people like Tito or Ben Christensen or Ty Mansfield in Ensign? Why isn’t Kevinf’s anecdotal evidence of a Bishop with a gay, celibate, Mormon EQ Pres. getting publicity?

Are they unsure of their position? Are they hedging their bets on the hopes that more will be learned about same-sex attraction before committing to a position? Do they recognize the inherent contradiction/hypocrisy in the idea that required celibacy flies in the face of all that is Mormon?
-L- Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Nick, implicit pressure to marry as a gay has not been my experience. Given an overt denial that the church encourages marriage for this purpose, what precisely makes you think there is implicit messages contradicting this?
Matt Thurston Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 4:20 PM
anon-for-now-please (#4) and others,

You make some good points. Elder Wickman made a similar point when he said:

“There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction….I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage.”

I don’t think the comparison follows. Single, heterosexual men and women at least have the opportunity to marry and have a fulfilling relationship, the opportunity to love and be loved. Whether or not they accomplish that objective in their lives is beside the point. The opportunity is everything, just ask women before they had the right to vote, or blacks before they were free men. What women made of the their right to vote and what blacks made of their freedom was up to them, but they no doubt cherished that freedom/opportunity.

Elder Wickman’s example doesn’t work for me either. Gays are not handicapped. And Rob’s pedophilia and beastiality examples don’t work either. Pedophiles and Beastialophiles (?) object of affection/lust is not another consenting adult.

Here is the link to the entire interview with Elder’s Oaks and Wickman.
dottie Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Are gays sinning if they hold hands with or kiss someone of the same sex? The BYU honor code seems to so indicate. Straights and gays are therefore not treated alike in this respect.
Nick Literski Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Personally, I hope Courtney Wickman’s unnamed disability is mental, and profound enough that she doesn’t know her father shamelessly exploited her in order to score a rhetorical point in a largely political interview. Shameful.
Matt Thurston Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 7:52 PM
-L- (#12),

Do you have any anecdotal evidence or feeling re the goals and hopes of the current generation of young, gay, committed Mormons? Are they looking, like you, to marry a heterosexual partner and raise a family (i.e. what I call the “Third Path”), or are they committed to a single, celibate life (i.e. the “Fourth Path”)? (Feel free not to use my clunky labels if you want.)

And I’m curious what you think of my Comment #11? Do you feel there is enough support and publicity/awareness from the Church for gay Mormons on either the Third or Fourth Path?

Thanks.
Rivkah Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Nick (#1),

You must not have attended the presentation you refer to in your comment. I did. I doubt the three men who participated in that presentation would appreciate your description of them being “trotted out in front of the audience.” They participated willingly with their wives, and their candor and honesty were impressive. Two of them said they had fully disclosed their situations to their wives prior to their weddings; one did not (his wife learned about it nine months later). The same two said they had difficulty with intimacy at the beginning of their marriages but that it continued to improve with time. These two seemed to have relationships that, while not free from challenges, were loving and fulfilling.

I believe one of the reasons there aren’t as many older people participating in events like this conference is that most older people in long-term marriages do not continue to self-identify as “gay.” The issue doesn’t loom so large in their lives anymore. They don’t maintain involvement with Evergreen and similar organizations (as the above-mentioned couples still do), so they have less reason or opportunity to participate in events like the above-mentioned conference.
Steve M. Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Rob (#2):

One thing I find quite disturbing is that somehow in our society it is getting more and more commonplace to believe that fantasies and passions of the mind outside of a marriage personal relationship is not sin. For instance- A man who is married and sealed in the temple who comes out later and says that he is attracted to other men is in my opinion in a state of sin.

I can’t help but be a bit skeptical of this claim. First of all, attraction is more or less a passive act. I don’t actively choose whether or not I’m going to be attracted to a particular person I pass on the street; it’s more of an instinctive reaction. And I don’t believe it’s sinful or unfaithful to recognize the attractiveness of a person (male or female) other than one’s spouse. Being attracted to someone (i.e., “other men”) is not the same as lusting after them or acting upon that attraction.

Additionally, sexual fantasy is widely recognized as a regular (and to an extent, unavoidable) behavior. Oftentimes, the content of fantasies has nothing to do with the type of behavior one would actually be willing to engage in.

Surely sexual passions must be handled responsibly, but they cannot be entirely turned off like a light switch. It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of not sexual morality or responsibility, but repression, which is far from healthy (particularly for singles and other celibates who have virtually no outlet for sexual expression).
Jana Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 8:56 PM
No doubt this is a bit of a threadjack, but I am totally uncomfortable with Elder Wickman’s equation of disabled=unmarriageable (and don’t even get me started on how much I dislike the ‘h-word’). Nick I’m with you that this use of Courtney’s story is an exploitation of her dignity.
Ann Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 8:59 PM
I was raised a Catholic. I attended Saturday catechism as a child and had daily religion classes later when I attended Catholic school. Committed faithful people who did not ever marry were part and parcel of my religious background. They were nuns and priests.

I can see the fourth way working for people if they decide that they are going to devote their lives to the service of God as they understand God. There is something beautiful about a level of faith that would allow one to sacrifice human partnership in order to live a godly life.

I certainly don’t think it’s a sacrifice that all gays and lesbians are called to make. I use the word “called” deliberately. I think some people feel deeply that this is what God would have them do. I think the young gay men who are married to women (and perhaps lesbian women married to men) feel the same way. I wish them happiness, fulfillment and success. I sure as hell couldn’t do it.
Steve M. Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Oh, and as for the main post…

I also can’t help but be skeptical of the “success stories” about gay Mormons enjoying healthy heterosexual marriages. As has already been pointed out, such examples involve newlyweds, for the most part. And for every such marriage that does “succeed,” there are dozens more that fail. Encouraging homosexuals to marry a member of the opposite sex is irresponsible, in my opinion.

I don’t know how I feel about the “Fourth Path.” A lifetime of celibacy is a tall order. I’m not sure that I could honestly encourage someone to follow this path either.
LRC Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Dottie raises a good point in comparing hetero/homosexual celibacy standards. Thousands of single LDS men and women attend church meetings together with many public displays of affection including, but not limited to, handholding, hugs, backrubs and kissing (sometimes encouraged by bishops trying to fertilize marital prospects). Even those not steadily dating have been known to go on occasional dates and even – gasp – dance together. So these otherwise celibate men and women do (generally) have opportunities to both experience and express physical affection which generally does not lead to marriage or even sexual intimacy. Some of these hetero men and women may continue their celibacy – whether forced upon them or chosen by them – until the day they die.

The bar is obviously higher for homosexuals, especially men, where simple public hugging, hand-holding, and walking arm-in-arm, is regarded as open sin and a sign that there is probably more going on “behind closed doors” (or at least that the couple is quickly headed on a slippery slope to sin). And as for opportunities to develop friendships through dating or dancing – well, that is clearly out of the question.

The church is not an easy place for many single adults, celibate or not, just because of its (sometimes over-)emphasis on marriage and family and the different way it treats non-married adults with respect to many things, including eligibility for callings and temple work. If the Church wants to encourage celibate homosexuals to remain actively involved, then it needs to publicly recognize and affirm that single adults are not pariahs, and that they can serve in callings and be inspired leaders and administrators just as capably as their married counterparts.

That might mean putting a little less emphasis on the need to marry and a little more emphasis on the need to know and follow Christ regardless of marital status or sexual attraction.
Matt Thurston Says:
April 17th, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Ann (#20), Good point, but for them to succeed there needs to be a culture of support in place for such a lifestyle, a theology that “elevates celibacy to a high order of spiriutal living” which we currently don’t have in Mormonism. As Robert Rees said in his review of In Quiet Desperation,

Obviously such a choice [Ty Mansfield's decision to live a life of celibacy] requires an ultimate commitment. It isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t that it is impossible for one to make oneself a ?¢Ç¨?ìeunuch for the kingdom of heaven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s sake?¢Ç¨¬ù (Matt. 19:12), but the demands of doing so require a heroic sacrifiice of so much that we tend to associate with being fully human that, realistically, few are able to achieve it. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t by any means disparage the wish to try to live such a life, but to do so in the absence of a religious philosophy that elevates celibacy to a high order of spiritual living (which the Mormon Church has never done) or a social and spiritual community that supports and rewards it (as Catholics and a few other religious orders do), is, to say the least, extremely challenging. If one could withdraw from the world with its ?¢Ç¨?ìcauldron of unholy loves?¢Ç¨¬ù to a cloistered world where, to use Gerard Manley Hopkins?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s lines, ?¢Ç¨?ìno storms come,?¢Ç¨¬ù where ?¢Ç¨?ìsprings not fail,/ [and there] flies no sharp and sided hail,?¢Ç¨¬ù and find deep fellowship with other celibates, celibacy would be a more realistic alternative. However, the serious problem the Catholic Church is currently facing over many priests?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ inability to sustain celibacy reveals that, even with a strong support system, it does not seem to be a realistic life choice for the majority of homosexuals?¢Ç¨Äùor heterosexuals. It is one thing to live a life of pure holiness in a cloistered world (such as that exemplified by the fourteenth-century German monk Thomas B Kempis in his The Imitation of Christ), but it is far more difficult to do so in a culture in which one tries to maintain one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s erotic poise while confronted daily with a thousand images of desire.

This is why I keep asking why we’re not seeing more support from the Church for gay, committed, and celibate Mormons. You’d think they’d want to encourage and publicize the success stories. What is the alternative, other than encouraging heterosexual marriage or allowing same-sex marriage???
Rob Osborn Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 7:15 AM
The reason I brought up the for instance with little children or animals was to point to the simple fact that we know those types of attraction to be “sin”. And yet, we also know that there are some few people who seem to be hopelessly attracted to children or animals, as if they are born that way. The point i was trying to make is that our bodies crave feelings- even those that seem unatural. It is up to us however to not give into feelings of pleasure that lead us down sinful paths. Therefor, I believe that someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!

If we discount thought and fantasy from what we call sin, then our church as a whole is in a world of hurt because it takes away personal copeability.
MAC Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 7:45 AM
“Same-sex attraction is likened to a Job-like or Abraham-like test of faith and endurance.”

I don’t know that identifying (or be identified by others) as gay and experiencing same-sex attraction are necessarily the same thing.
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 AM
-L- #12:
As you note, the official stance has changed from the old “get married and you’ll be okay” advice that damaged many lives. If you don’t mind though, let’s look at what Dallin Oaks said (in what was clearly a very carefully-worded, correllated mock interview/article):

“We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: ?¢Ç¨?ìMarriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.?¢Ç¨¬ù To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
“On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity ?¢Ç¨Äù that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
“President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.”

So, marriage is not seen as “therapy” or “cure.” Note, however, that Oaks interprets Hinckley’s words to mean that the “daughters of God” (no word on sons, apparently) must not be brought into such marriages “under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them.” Oaks then goes on to describe an implicit expectation—that a homosexual will “cleanse themselves of any transgression,” “deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background,” “feel a great attraction for a daughter of God,” and marry, thus enjoying “the blessings of eternity.” Yes, he couches all this as “IF.” Still, the language he uses (not to mention his position of authority) holds this out as the proper resolution, UNLESS that poor homo just can’t control himself. I would submit that any young, gay man who was attempting to be faithful to LDS-ism would read Oaks’ words above as a clear expectation. Any young gay LDS man who can’t “control themselves” enough to marry and have a family clearly does not measure up.

At the very least, we have a profoundly mixed message here.
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 8:01 AM
Rivkah #17,
You are correct; I did not attend the conference. I read about it. I basically read exactly what you have said, and I don’t think I reported anything differently. It seems we only disagree in the sense that you don’t see any implicatinos behind the session being held in the first place. To me, the location speaks volumes. Combined with Dallin Oaks’ words, it seems clear to me that the church (notwithstanding its admission that marriage is not a “cure”) fully expects gay men to “control themselves” enough to successfully marry heterosexually and raise families.
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Rob #24,
It seems to me that your statement betrays a number of misconceptions on your part. Allow me to explain:

You wrote:
“The reason I brought up the for instance with little children or animals was to point to the simple fact that we know those types of attraction to be ?¢Ç¨?ìsin?¢Ç¨¬ù. And yet, we also know that there are some few people who seem to be hopelessly attracted to children or animals, as if they are born that way.”

Rob, the implication of your statement, of course, is that you do not believe that homosexual persons are “born that way.” You use “seem” and “as if” to convey this message rather clearly. Now, I will readily admit that sexual orientation is a complex matter. There is no single explanation for homosexuality that covers all homosexual persons. There is, however, much to suggest that biology plays a profound role. In my own experience, I have made anecdotal observations which lead me to this conclusion. You see, Rob, I was married to a woman for 18 years, trying desperately to be the person that LDS teachings require. I don’t want to be graphic, Rob, but suffice it to say that even something as simple as body scents affected me differently than they do straight men. The natural scent of a woman literally made me violently nauseous, such that I was unable to bring pleasure to my then-wife in ways that many heterosexual men find nearly intoxicating. On the other hand, I have a very different response to (for example) the scent of male perspiration–it’s nearly euphoric. These are not “choices,” Rob, but simple, biological responses. Science, of course, has found such things as structural brain differences between gay men and straight men. To say that no homosexuals are “born that way” simply ignores reality.

You wrote:
“The point i was trying to make is that our bodies crave feelings- even those that seem unatural.”

Rob, can you conceive that homosexual feelings seem entirely NATURAL to homosexuals? Can you believe that heterosexual relations feel UNNATURAL to gay men? I have experienced both heterosexual and homosexual relations, Rob. Suffice it to say that the first time I was intimate with another man, I wondered what to even call what I had done for 18 years with a woman. For the first time, I felt the kind of transcendant feelings and sensations that most healthy people associate with sexual relations. There was such a dramatic, profound difference, that I hesitated to call what I had done with a woman “sex” at all.

You wrote:
“It is up to us however to not give into feelings of pleasure that lead us down sinful paths.”

Rob, are you a Mormon or a Puritan? “Feelings of pleasure” are not inherently sinful. Pretending to be straight when you are gay, however, is certainly a “sinful path.”

You wrote:
“Therefor[e], I believe that someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!

Rob, I’m sorry that you seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, despite the many profound differences between the two. A 10 year old girl is not a consenting adult. As a gay man, I have never had a sexual partner who was not a consenting adult.

You wrote:
“If we discount thought and fantasy from what we call sin, then our church as a whole is in a world of hurt because it takes away personal copeability.” [I assume you mean "culpability."]

Rob, such a statement flies in the face of Mormon doctrine, which considers sexual attraction a gift from deity. I don’t mean to be insulting, but your posts sound as if you have some serious issues of sexual repression. At the very least, you have a profound misunderstanding of the role of sexuality. What you are stating is quite at odds with the teachings of LDS general authorities on the subject.
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Matt,

I just discovered this thread, so I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m jumping in.

You ask: (# 11) ?¢Ç¨?ìIs the greater Mormon Church even aware of these subtle changes? Why not profile people like Tito or Ben Christensen or Ty Mansfield in Ensign??¢Ç¨¬ù

Ben Christensen has left the Church and recently announced his divorce, so it wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t do the Church much good to profile him in benefit of their cause.
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Steve M.,

(#21) ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd for every such marriage that does ?¢Ç¨Àúsucceed,?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ there are dozens more that fail.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I feel pretty confident in saying here, Steve, that you simly don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know this. There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s no way to get an accurate sample or statistic of those who do have ?¢Ç¨?ìsuccessful?¢Ç¨¬ù marriages?¢Ç¨Äùin any way we might hope to define success. I fully agree with Rivkah?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s (#17) comments. I know a handful of people in that situation, and I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m really not all that connected. To say that they are ?¢Ç¨?ìstraight?¢Ç¨¬ù is simplistic or that they never experience any degree of homosexual attraction, na?É¬Øve. But they have?¢Ç¨Äùaccording to them?¢Ç¨Äùhealthy, fulfilling marriages with their spouses. If they are happy, should they really want more than that. What would you be skeptical about–that they say they’ve “changed”, or of their chances of success, or that they are happy? If it’s a matter of “change,” the real question is about how we define “change.” If it’s about success, only time will tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the “survival” rate of those marriages is as good or better than the survival rate of today’s heterosexual marriages in general. If it’s about being happy, it doesn’t really matter if you’re skeptical, because there’s a whole host of people to be skeptical of the happiness you might claim.

There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s been quite a discussion on this in the last few posts on: http://ardentmormon.blogspot.com/
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Rob, (#2, #24)

You know, I think I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m generally pretty even-keel, but your posts are pretty provocative and angering. And, frankly, you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re making an ass of yourself.

It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s clear your confusing a lot of different issues, and this confusion?¢Ç¨Äùwhen translated into our teaching in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùonly exacerbates the shame and misunderstanding that already floods the general understanding of Church membership of many issues relating to psychological, emotional, sexual, social, and spiritual health and wellness.

As has already been mentioned, there is a big difference between ?¢Ç¨?ìattractions?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìfeelings?¢Ç¨¬ù and what the scriptures might refer to as ?¢Ç¨?ìimmoral thoughts.?¢Ç¨¬ù Attraction is not the same thing as fantasy. You use the (annoying) example of ?¢Ç¨?ìsomeone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!?¢Ç¨¬ù But what about the healthily and happily married heterosexual man who is ?¢Ç¨?ìattracted?¢Ç¨¬ù to the secretary at is office? Is his attraction a sin? What if he is even ?¢Ç¨?ìtempted?¢Ç¨¬ù to want to ?¢Ç¨?ìknow?¢Ç¨¬ù her?¢Ç¨Äùin the biblical sense? Is that a sin? No, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not. For him to willfully entertain those thoughts or ?¢Ç¨?ìdwell on them,?¢Ç¨¬ù as you say, *would* be sinful?¢Ç¨Äùeven if it might be ?¢Ç¨?ìnatural.?¢Ç¨¬ù Don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t use what you see as ?¢Ç¨?ìunnatural?¢Ç¨¬ù or as gross perversions to make your point, because you are just as subject to the exact same issues?¢Ç¨Äùthough, perhaps, manifest differently?¢Ç¨Äùthan any one of us.
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Nick,

(#28) ?¢Ç¨?ìThere is, however, much to suggest that biology plays a profound role.?¢Ç¨¬ù

It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s clear, Nick, that genetics and biology play a role?¢Ç¨Äùif not only because every aspect of our ?¢Ç¨?ìhumanness?¢Ç¨¬ù is so interconnected that it would be difficult if not impossible to sort out any on factor, or group of related factors, as play any more ?¢Ç¨?ìprofound [of a] role?¢Ç¨¬ù than any other factors. There is nothing in science to say that biological or genetic factors are determinative?¢Ç¨Äùrather than influential?¢Ç¨Äùin the development of homosexual attraction.

?¢Ç¨?ìI don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want to be graphic, Rob, but suffice it to say that even something as simple as body scents affected me differently than they do straight men. The natural scent of a woman literally made me violently nauseous, such that I was unable to bring pleasure to my then-wife in ways that many heterosexual men find nearly intoxicating.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s be honest here, Nick: These are *your* issues?¢Ç¨Äùnot ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexual?¢Ç¨¬ù issues, per se. Again, I know heterosexually married men who experience homosexual attraction who have come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way, and for whom this is simply not the case. To use your own aversions as evidence that heterosexual relationships don’t work for homosexual men who *want* to be in those relationships and to make them work, is simply not germane to the discussion.
Matt Thurston Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Thanks for stopping by Tito, I was hoping you’d find this thread.

Yikes! Ben Christensen has left the Church? Wow. I did not know that. Is this documented anywhere? Does Ben have a blog?

I was impressed with the articles Ben had written for Dialogue and was pulling for him on his journey. Is he now pursuing a gay path?

And, any thoughts on some of the questions I ask in Comment #11or #16?

For anyone interested, here is a link to a Dialogue article where Ben discusses his decision to remain married (to a woman) and his commitment to the Church, despite being a self-described “Gay Mormon.”
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Tito,
Apparently I was not clear enough. In citing my own example, I noted that it was *anecdotal*, and something which gave *me* evidence that there are biological factors involved. It was not my intention to suggest that the same experience holds true for every gay man, nor even that every gay man is “biologically” gay. I would like to think I’m well-read and experienced enough not to so drastically oversimplify a very complex subject.
Rob Osborn Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Nick,

Every gay person I have run into always states- “I can’t help it, I was born this way”. I believe it to be a lie. That is like saying that one cannot control their feelings. Gay people, especially the supposed “gay mormons” feel like they are feeling picked on and that God will understand. The truth of it is that homosexuality in any form whatsoever is an abomination in God’s sight. Are murderers born murderers? Are rapists born with those feelings? It is like saying that we do not have control over our passions or desires and that we must instead be controled by genetics (the natural man).

Will your gay lifestyle get you into heaven? Absolutely not, just as anyone else who breaks the law of chastity. Gay People plain and simpley choose to be gay. It is not something forced upon them neither is it something like a disease that they are stuck with. We are told by prophets not to look at pornography. And why? Because “scientifically” it has been proven that pornography stimulates the brain and body with chemical changes and can become highly addictive and destructive to ones personal life and possibly those around them. So does this mean that I am doomed to be addicted to pornography just because there is receptors in my brain for that stimulas? No, but I must keep myself from going down that path of destruction that part of me wants so badly to go down. Applying that to homosexuality, there are laws that tell us not to go down those paths just because our bodies feel inclined to do so. These laws are those of the gospel of Christ. God did not create us to be chained down by our carnal and evil appetites. Everyone who has been exposed to pornography at some level will readily admit that it could become addictive to them. Homosexual lifestyles demand that there is a minimal level of intimacy involved in order for that lifestyle to be enjoyed. So what is really the bottom line is that in order for a gay person to be satisfied in their relationship they must give way to the bodies natural desire to be aroused.

Applying that to a married man who can’t help himself to his appetite for picking up hookers and having pleasures with them should we say that this man is just doing what he feels natural or is he doing a sin? And how does one differentiate between the unfaithful spouse and the gay person? Who is justifiable before Christ? Neither! Some men never find fulfillment in relationships with grown women but they do in little children. Does this mean they were born that way? Scientific studies have also shown that Gay people can and do change if they desire it just as unfaithful spouses have been shown to change according to their desire also. I believe further then that being gay is just a cop out for saying that one cannot overcome his or her desire to overcome the bodies natural appetites. We could all give in to pornography addiction because that is how our brain and body were made but we also have commandments telling us what to avoid and the reasons why, this includes homosexual thoughts and feelings or any other carnal appetite that is pleasurable to the senses but lead us down dark pathways of sin!
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:12 PM
A bit more for Tito:
I notice that you differentiate between “homosexual men who *want* to be in those [heterosexual]relationships and to make them work” and me. I was in a heterosexual marriage for 18 years, Tito, and wanted very much to make it work. For a time, I was able to do so. As I matured, however, and came to know myself better, I found the situation more and more unbearable. I am aware of quite a number of homosexual LDS men who are married to women, who have restorted to adulterous relationships in order to deal with this difficulty. I chose not to do that. Had I remained in the marriage, however, I think there is a very good likelihood that I would have ended my life within the next few years. I finally made the choice that I personally felt I had to make. I don’t think, however, that my 18 years of effort was an example of “not wanting” to do what the LDS church taught.

Further, I notice that you refer to homosexual men who are married to women, as having “come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way.” Tito, it is one thing for you to hold certain religious beliefs, which forbid you from having an intimate relationship with another man. It is quite another for you to conclude that gay men who do not marry women are making an “unhealthy” choice. The former is a personal, spiritual judgment. The latter is something better left to a mental health professional.

All I’m saying, Tito, is please don’t rush to judgment, concluding that gay men who find a heterosexual marriage untenable just don’t “want it enough” or haven’t dealt with their homosexuality in a “healthy” way. I would hope that you understand the issue is far more complex than that.
MAC Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Nick,

You aren’t being fair to Tito and quoted only a portion of his sentence. Your paragraph read

Further, I notice that you refer to homosexual men who are married to women, as having ?¢Ç¨?ìcome to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way.?¢Ç¨¬ù Tito, it is one thing for you to hold certain religious beliefs, which forbid you from having an intimate relationship with another man. It is quite another for you to conclude that gay men who do not marry women are making an ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy?¢Ç¨¬ù choice. The former is a personal, spiritual judgment. The latter is something better left to a mental health professional.

The complete sentence read “Again, I know heterosexually married men who experience homosexual attraction who have come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way, and for whom this is simply not the case.”

Nor, does any thing that he wrote does he imply “that gay men who do not marry women are making an ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy?¢Ç¨¬ù choice.”

You are putting words in his mouth.
MAC Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:37 PM
That second to last line was a disaster, should be

Nor, does anything that he wrote imply ?¢Ç¨?ìthat gay men who do not marry women are making an ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy?¢Ç¨¬ù choice.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I am a dufus
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Thank you, Rob, for your testimony. I understand that you believe, in a very absolute way, the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least so far as they condemn homosexual relations. Your suggestion that homosexual attraction is sinful is not, as you know, the current position of your church. Because you believe as you do, I would expect you to live your life accordingly.

That said, please understand that I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not believe the teachings of that organization on the subject of homosexuality to be the unquestionable truth, as you do. I do not think, as you suggest, that your deity will give me a free pass in violating his directives. To the contrary, I simply do not believe in the existence of the kind of deity you worship, nor do I believe that any actual deity has prohibited sexual relations between two consenting, adult gay men. It is quite irrelevant to me, whether you beileve I will reach your concept of “heaven” by means of my intimate relations.
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:41 PM
MAC, if I have misunderstood Tito’s intent, I’m sure he’ll clarify. I think you and I disagree at this point on what he conveyed.
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:44 PM
My understanding is that Ben said he no longer believed in the Church over a year ago, but that he continued to attend Church with his wife, to be a support to her. Someone please correct me if they know differently. I also don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know if he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s now pursuing a gay path, but judging from what he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s written, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s at least a consideration. It seems like he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s just trying to take all this a step at a time.

He recently blogged about his decision to divorce. You can read about it at The Fobcave.

To respond to comments #11or #16, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think the Church?¢Ç¨Äùor anyone in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùis particularly excited about Path Four. But I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think Paths Three and Four are really that different. My goal is not to be celibate. My goal is simply to obey the Law of Chastity?¢Ç¨Äùas it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s understood and taught in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùregarding sexual expression outside heterosexual marriage until I have the opportunity to marry, whether that happens on this side of the veil or the other. And my understanding is that heterosexual marriage isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t discouraged as long as it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s entered in good faith, with realistic expectations, and not as some form of ?¢Ç¨?ìtool?¢Ç¨¬ù to resolve issues of same-sex attraction.

A lot of people poo-poo therapy, but therapy has been really helpful for me, and marriage in the not-so-distant future now feels like much more of potential reality to me than it did even a few years ago. So, perhaps the Church does hold out that therapy can help individuals find success in marriage, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know. But I do personally feel like I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve benefited greatly from it, and expect that I will continue to do so.

As for Kevinf?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s anecdotes, I know several men in similar situations?¢Ç¨Äùincluding one who has served in a couple bishoprics (while openly acknowledging that he experiences same-sex attractions) and another who served as Stake Young Men?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s president when it was well-known he had lived an openly gay life for some years and even been ?¢Ç¨?ìmarried?¢Ç¨¬ù to a guy for a few of those years. Neither of those men are currently married (heterosexually, I mean?¢Ç¨¬¶ or homosexually for that matter. . I suspect we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ll hear more of those stories in the future.
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Nick,

Okay, I grant that (#34). But even so, that experience could just as easily be evidence of significant psycho-emotional factors as biological ones.
Tito Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Nick, I certainly didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean to imply that you simply didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want it or weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t trying hard enough. So, I apologize if it came across that way. I think there are a lot of factors that would contribute to a ?¢Ç¨?ìsuccessful?¢Ç¨¬ù mixed-orientation marriage, and I certainly don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want to oversimplify it or dilute it down to a simplistic measure of desire.

Concerning your other statement, I think you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re reading into my words by implying my statement regarding men married heterosexually and dealing healthily with their issues as condemnation of your or of your choice as ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy.?¢Ç¨¬ù I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know you or your situation. What I was saying, however, is that if men do want to marry heterosexually, there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing so. For example, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think the white-knuckle or ?¢Ç¨?ìdon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t talk about it and it will go away?¢Ç¨¬ù approaches are realistic or healthy. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think impure motives (ie, I just want to be ?¢Ç¨Àústraight?¢Ç¨Ñ¢, so I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m going get married in order to make these feelings go away) are helpful, either. Your own allusion to those who are married and have adulterous relationships on the side is another example.

And note, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not ascribing any of these examples or others to your situation. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not judging you or your choice. I am speaking *generally* that one cannot dismiss marriage for men with same-sex feelings out-of-hand simply because it didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t work out in their own situation any more than heterosexuals can do the same simply because their marriages didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t work. The simple fact is that every one of us?¢Ç¨Äùheterosexual or homosexual?¢Ç¨Äùhas a package of challenges or issues that we are going to take into a marriage, and we need to approach that decision as honestly, as knowledgeably, and as prepared as we possibly can. And then we give it a go. No marriage is approached without its risks or challenges. We are no exception. We just have a unique issue that is going to play out differently, depending on our individual temperaments and circumstances.

You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re right, your decision?¢Ç¨Äùjust as any of ours are?¢Ç¨Äùis a personal one, and each of us need to recognize that we are going to be held strictly accountable for decisions. If you feel that your decision is in harmony with the Lord?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s will for you at this place in your life, who am I to judge that? I never intended to do so, and I apologize, again, if it came across that way.
Beijing Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Steve M. is correct to be “skeptical of the ’success stories’ about gay Mormons enjoying healthy heterosexual marriages. As has already been pointed out, such examples involve newlyweds, for the most part. And for every such marriage that does ’succeed,’ there are dozens more that fail.”

I am the straight ex-spouse of one such failed marriage.

My gay ex-husband followed the new recommended procedure. He had five years of “reparative therapy” from a licensed LDS therapist before we ever met. His story was written up as an anonymous case study in the literature as someone whose homosexual feelings were significantly reduced by the therapy and who began to have heterosexual feelings as well.

I met him at an LDS church dance. We danced and talked the night away. The next time I saw him was at an Institute class. After class, he took me aside and told me he was gay. Then he asked me on our first date. So, I knew from day one. He never, ever deceived me.

He was not using our dates, engagement, or eventual marriage as a means toward a “cure.” He had already achieved a reduced level of homosexual feelings from the therapy, and didn’t feel a need to completely eradicate the feelings, just maintain what the therapy had done for him and continue to resist temptation. He didn’t expect marriage to further reduce his remaining homosexual feelings.

We met a lot of LDS people during the year and a half we were married. We talked of our marriage in glowingly positive yet realistic-sounding terms. They were so proud of us…we were like pioneers! We were proving by our very lives that the blessings of temple marriage are available to all God’s children who were willing to do the necessary work to overcome their trials! We wanted so much for it to work out, and worked hard in counseling. We really believed we were going to be a success story. We used every ounce of positive thinking we could muster. We received numerous priesthood blessings that promised us that this problem would be resolved if we were faithful…and you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone more faithful than us at that time.

We were genuinely in love with each other, but we were completely unprepared for how hard it was to be in a mixed-orientation marriage. It was a lot more complicated than just living on a less-frequent sex schedule. It’s one thing when, for example, a straight man has a post-partum wife who can’t have sex at all for a while. It’s quite another thing when your spouse is struggling with a near-constant sexual attraction to a significant number of people, but is not sexually attracted to you to any significant degree, and never will be.

When our challenges started to become overwhelming, we turned to the two mixed-orientation couples who had encouraged us to get married and assured us that their marriages were successful though not without challenges. But suddenly they revealed that they had withheld a great deal of information from us. One couple revealed that their children were conceived by artificial insemination because they couldn’t ever have the kind of sex that would result in children. (They let others believe, as they had initially led us to believe, that the children were the results of natural heterosexual urges that had resulted from successful therapy.) Another couple revealed that the husband had had repeated incidents with homosexual sex outside of marriage that the wife had forgiven and forgiven until trust was gone and they were basically staying together for their (adopted) kids. This was held in confidence between them and their bishop, even while the husband became a sort of unofficial spokesman and success story exemplar for their 10-year-plus mixed-orientation marriage.

You have no idea what is going on in other people’s marriages. You have no idea what their motives are for wanting to be “success stories.” You have no idea how many people like my ex-husband and I have tried the mixed-orientation experiment and been unsuccessful. After all, his case study story is still out there encouraging others to believe in reparative therapy. All those LDS people we met while married are probably still spreading our then-successful-so-far story to their friends and friends-of-friends, blissfully unaware of the ending.
Steve M Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Rob,

Have you ever even tried to understand what it means to be gay? While I’m not gay, once I actually opened my mind and began learning from homosexuals and trying to understand what it’s like to be in their shoes, I realized that much of what I had been taught was totally erroneous. I suggest you do the same.

I would suggest doing a bit of research. Many of your claims are not only sweeping generalizations, but are downright wrong and innaccurate. All your comments have demonstrated is ignorance and an unopen mind.

I can’t ask you to change your mind, but I think it would be worth your while to make sure that you aren’t supporting your opinions with inaccurate and erroneous claims.
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Thanks for your explanation, Tito. I’d say we are in almost complete agreement.
loyalist Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 3:48 PM
i’ve been married now for a decade in a straight marriage. I only recently accepted that I am gay. It was something I fought against my whole life. Now I accept that it is a part of me but I continue on my way down the path that I chose. I love my wife, my children and I am faithful to my testimony. I’m not leaving any of them regardless of statistics or whatever.

I also know of others in gay/straight marriages of much much longer. Each with there own struggles but still going strong. We are out there watching and learning with everyone else.

Like Tito has stated before, though I hope that every gay lds person stays faithful, I will still love them regardless.

My hats off to the younger generation of faithful LDS gay men/women who will not be bound by false dogmas of “its best to be in the closet”. As one who still has one foot in the closet – it has been nothing but heart ache and pain. But I now finally get to see the full blessings and joy that comes with not only understanding myself but with living the gospel and not feeling split.
Matt Thurston Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Thank you for sharing your stories, Beijing and loyalist.

It is becoming apparent that one of the reasons the Church might not be actively publicizing and promoting/supporting those on the Third and Fourth Path is that the success rate isn’t very reliable, to put it mildly. I’m not trying to be indelicate, but it may be too big of a PR risk. Each time a Ben Christensen fails it’s further proof that the program isn’t working.

Switching gears, it’s tough to generalize about those on the Third Path. Obviously, the hetero-homosexual spectrum allows for much nuance inbetween hetero and homosexuality. Those in the middle clearly have an advantage should they choose the Third Path. I read, for example, on “-L-’s” blog that he is a “Kinsey 6.” Is one’s “rating” generally known in the gay community? Just curious.

By the way, Tito, I like what you said in #41: “But I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think Paths Three and Four are really that different. My goal is not to be celibate. My goal is simply to obey the Law of Chastity?¢Ç¨Äùas it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s understood and taught in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùregarding sexual expression outside heterosexual marriage until I have the opportunity to marry, whether that happens on this side of the veil or the other.” As I mentioned before, my Third and Fourth Path labels are clunky and I’m using them to facilitate discussion. You’ve better defined the heart of the issue. Well said.
Nick Literski Says:
April 18th, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I’m glad to see both Bejing and loyalist describe their own situations here. The simple truth is that there is a full spectrum of situations, with a full spectrum of success.

I tend to believe the Kinsey Scale really is a useful tool. Everybody falls along a continuum, and how far you are toward either end of that continuum has a great deal to do with how likely you are to find happiness in a given situation.
Steven B Says:
April 19th, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Rob said “Scientific studies have also shown that Gay people can and do change if they desire it just as unfaithful spouses have been shown to change according to their desire also.”
Would that changing one’s sexual orientation were as simple as an unfaithful spouse changing his or her behavior.
There is only *one* scientific study which claims that *some* gay people can change their sexual orientation, the highly criticized 2001 Robert Spitzer study. As a result of his findings Robert Spitzer became convinced that some people can change their sexuality, but that it is “quite rare.”
There are several short videos related to the study, for those interested:
Interview with Robert Spitzer, Throckmorton’s short edit
Interview with Robert Spitzer, Throckmorton’s long edit
The Spitzer Study of Ex-Gays: Flaws and Abuse – PART 1
The Spitzer Study of Ex-Gays: Flaws and Abuse – PART 2
Spitzer complains about the misuse of his study
MAC Says:
April 20th, 2007 at 9:22 AM
There is a HUGE body of evidence that proves that changes in sexuality occurs all over nature. Fish, lizards are routinely observed switching genders.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/sexchange2004.html

http://evolutiondiary.com/2006/12/21/virgin-birth-of-the-reptile-kind-komodo-dragon-reproduce-without-mating/

Unfortunately this is frequently associated with pollution, which will open a whole new mess off commentary
Rilke Says:
April 21st, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Gay former LDS here.
It amazes me that people still cling to the belief that homosexuality is chosen. As a gay man, I don’t recall ever making such a choice. In fact, had I ever been given the choice to be either gay or straight, I would have certainly chosen to be straight. Be heterosexual would have possibly saved me from self-esteem issues, given me the oppportunity to have my own family, and avoided ‘hiding out’ through much of my life; living a lie.

Nick’s responses to heterosexual intimacy are not shared by all gay men and may not even be typical but there are gay men who tell of similar reactions.

What many people do is forget the deep emotional components involved. That ’something special’ that is involved in all romantic relationships. If those componants are absent in a gay/straight marriage how can the marriage be fulfilling?

I miss the not be a father or husband but the decision not to ‘take the chance’ may have saved myself and any potential spouse and children from deep heartache.
Nick Literski Says:
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Rilke,
I agree with you. In citing my experience with physical intimacy, I was not pretending to speak for all gay men, by any means. In context, I was pointing out that this was an indicator to me of the biological involvement at hand.

By all means, the more important element IS the emotional intimacy. I managed to stay married to a woman for 18 years, despite intense sexual frustration. It was only when the EMOTIONAL need became so obvious and intense, that I finally found the courage to come out of the closet.
SunstoneBlog.com » The Third Path: Gay, Mormon, Married Says:
April 24th, 2007 at 1:06 PM
[...] few days ago Matt Thurston created a blog here on Sunstone called the Fourth Path: Gay, Mormon, Celibate. Matt lays out the four paths for gays in Mormondom, as he sees it, and the Third path is [...]
-L- Says:
April 25th, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Many apologies for being gone from the discussion until the discussion is essentially over. But…

Regarding Matt in #16: From the several blogs of young gay LDS people, I would say there is quite a bit of variability in which “path” people feel is in their future. And, their assessment of which path changes frequently. It’s a fickle bunch. As are the folks who choose path 3 and then get divorced. j/k

And regarding Nick in #26: Nick, I just don’t see how you can say without some sophist acrobatics that the church is still implicitly encouraging gay men to marry. I read the same Oaks interview you quote and I get the clear impression that chastity is the rule in the church, and marriage is an ultimate goal that may be achieved in this life and may not be.
-L- Says:
April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Oops… I wish I could go back and erase that last comment and try again. “Sophist” was a poor word choice, and seems to reflect disdain for Nick’s view. That wasn’t my intent, I just disagree.
Nick Literski Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 8:51 AM
-L- #55:
Funny, but I just don’t see how *you* can say without some acrobatics that the church does *not* implicitly encourage gay men to marry women. In the same Oaks “interview,” he lays out criteria which should be met so that a gay man can marry a woman. He does so in a manner that conveys a strong subtext, that if a gay man doesn’t work his way “up” to these criteria, he is FAILING. He speaks of reptentance, and self-control—things that are very much a part of LDS teaching. Any latter-day saint who isn’t repenting and exercising self-control is falling short, right?

I’m not saying it’s entirely intentional, -L-. In fact, I very much doubt that it is, when as you note, the official word no longer supports marriage as a “cure” for homosexuality. Still, the underlying expectation is there for every LDS person to repent, exercise self-control, etc. I don’t see how a young gay LDS man could escape feelings of inadequacy, if he chose to be single and celibate.
-L- Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I think there is an assumption that eventually all faithful folks will have the opportunity to marry and enjoy all the blessings associated with that. But for some (including groups other than gays), this won’t be possible in this life. So, I can see how you’d sense that subtext, but I disagree with the implications of inadequacy. Such feelings would be based on a misunderstanding of the church’s doctrine, not the church’s mixed message.
Nick Literski Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Actually, -L-, I think you miss my point entirely. I also think it’s uncharitable to sccuse the person who feels such things, rather than acknowledge the realities that give rise to such feelings.
-L- Says:
April 26th, 2007 at 3:41 PM
It’s not an accusation, Nick, just an observation. And I think it’s uncharitable for you to call me uncharitable. So neener. The “realities” you perceive I think aren’t realities at all, merely your own perceptions. That’s my point, no blame intended.
Nick Literski Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 7:41 AM
The fact remains, -L-, there is only one path acknowledged as “success” in the LDS church. That path is heterosexual marriage and childrearing. Platitudes such as “oh, you’ll marry in the resurrection, when you’re not missing both legs and one arm” don’t change this fact.

Since you wish to speak of “understanding doctrine,” I would point out that such “after this life” promises are only extended to those who didn’t have the opportunity in mortality. In the case of homosexuality, Oaks has laid out his view that there IS an opportunity—-through repentance, self-control, and desire to marry and have children. The man who doesn’t “take this opportunity” will not, according to LDS doctrine, have it offered to him in the afterlife.

Remember that for Oaks, there is no such thing as homosexuality. For Oaks, there are only “homosexual feelings,” and feelings are to be “controlled.” I don’t see the slightest hint in Oaks’ mock interview that lifetime celibacy is seen as a “success story” for gay LDS men.
-L- Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 10:08 AM
It’s not a platitude, Nick, it’s a compassionate concession that is highly relevant and that you apparently feel you have to minimize so you can feel justified in being outraged that there are no concessions. As Tito has said elsewhere, the church focuses on the law of chastity as success, not lifetime celibacy. For some it’s the same thing and constitutes not having “the opportunity in mortality.” That’s the way I’ve always seen it anyway without trying really hard not to see it otherwise.

I realize I won’t convince you, I just wondered if you had anything interesting to support your assertion that there is this implicit expectation of marriage despite the explicit advice against it as therapy. You having said nothing persuasive, that’s all I wanted to know.
Matt Thurston Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 10:25 AM
I agree with both of you. -L- is representing the idealistic position and Nick is representing the realistic postion. -L-’s position represents the official policy/doctrine; Nick’s position represents the inner hopes/expectations/prejudices of many, if not most, Mormons, be they lay members or leaders.
Nick Literski Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 2:30 PM
-L-
I’m not sure what “concessions” you think I have asked for, let alone am “outraged” about. Feel free, however, to classify me as an “outraged” rabble-rouser, if that makes it easier for you to remain within your wilfully-ignorant comfort zone.

For you to say the church focuses on “chastity as success, not lifetime celibacy,” fails to admit the established fact that “chastity” IS “lifetime celibacy” for gay LDS men who are wise enough not to marry. Of course, you can glibly blather on about how these men will be able to marry in the afterlife if they prove “faithful,” but such a claim flies in the face of LDS doctrine. Alma clearly taught that whatever feelings and attitudes a person holds at death will rise with him in the resurrection. Regardless of the false doctrine taught by Hickman, there is absolutely no revelatory foundation upon which to claim that homosexuals will suddenly find themselves heterosexual after death.

Matt gets it. There is an official, ideal stance. There is also a widespread cultural, attitudinal stance.
Rob Lauer Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Good point, Nick.

Mormon doctrine has from its infancy taught that our basic character and mind does not change at death.

Add to this another key Mormon doctrine: God did NOT create the mind/spirit of the individual. As Joseph Smith clearly taught in the Doctrine & Covenants, iintelligence (meaning the individual mind) was not created–”nor indeed can it be.”

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph taught regarding the mind of the individual “there was no creation about…the very idea lessens man in my estimation….God never had the power to create it [the mind of the individual] because God could not create himself….”

So if the mind of the individual was not created by God, if it is “co-equal with God” (Joseph’s own words) and without beginning or end, whence comes the doctrine that God can change the mind of the homosexual in the next life if that homosexual is celibate and faithful to the Church until death?

God can not change that which He never had the power to create and which is, by its nature, an eternal free agent with the power within itself to learn to become a God itself.

Neo-Mormonism (the evangelical, Christian fundamentalist doctrines that the LDS Church and her apologists have adopted over the past 30 years) is at odds with traditional Mormon doctrine.

I can think of no other area of currernt debate in which the short comings of Neo-Mormonism are more evident (and more out of touch with reality, reason and the findings of science and medicine) than that regarding the nature of human homosexuality.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I don’t actually accept that “intelligence” in mormon doctrine is strictly synonymous with “the individual mind.” And your overreliance on that idea seems to completely overlook the strong neurological and psychosocial influences on what it means to be an individual.

If I have an extra Y chromosome, I’m incredibly more likely to end up incarcerated. If I’m sexually abused as a child, I’m incredibly more likely to have sexual issues in my adulthood (that might include abuse). To say that my sexual problems or my penchant for commiting serious crime are just a part of my “eternal individual mind” and co-equal with God seems ridiculous and ignores overwhelmingly strong evidence to the contrary.

I don’t know exaclty how this applies to the debate about homosexuality. I don’t think anyone has grounds to claim either that it is eternal or not. Nor do I think it should matter. It is very clear that–for whatever biological or psychosocial reasons–many people are homosexual. to marginalize them and exclude them from spirituality is a travesty.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 27th, 2007 at 10:00 PM
MAC

Are you actually suggesting that because some animals naturally change gender through their lifespan that homosexuals should likewise be able to “decide” to change their orientation.

Lordy I hope I’m misunderstanding you, because that would be emberassingly naive and uninformed.

Sexuality, even gender, is a great deal more “grey” than we commonly like to admit. It doesn’t actually mean much to say that I’m “male” or “female” or that I’m either hetero- or homosexual. These are more like points on a blurry continuum than actual categories. And you sure as hell aren’t going to clear anything up by looking at the rest of God’s creation—–where sex is so crazily varied and bizarre that it makes you realize we humans have taken it far to seriously. And it should go without saying that there is enough homosexual activity among other advanced species (dolphins, apes, etc.) to question any sense of “natural” law against it.

If anything, nature shows that different sexual behaviors (e.g. fidelity and promiscuity) suit different species evolutionarily based on several important survival factors–and that our overemphasis on complete heterosexual fidelity is more a product of how we got here evolutionarily than any divine credo given to Adam.
-L- Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Nick, are you always so insulting to people who disagree with you, or have I done something particularly egregious? I don’t consider being outraged to be a bad thing, and you seemed put out by the mixed message you believe comes from the church. If I’ve pegged you wrong, you can certainly clarify without being snarky and rude.

I don’t think Oaks said that marriage IS possible for everyone in this life, but that it may be possible for some gays. I find that reassurance to be very nice, I take his many qualifiers to be a deliberate effort to avoid your exact conclusion–that this applies in any way to all gays. I’m telling you what I’ve noticed and how I interpret the message–is this being “willfully ignorant”?

Further, I don’t read Alma’s reference to feelings and attitudes persisting in the afterlife as applicable to all sexual feelings or therefore to be as cut and dry as you feel your right to authoritatively claim (and a right to label Hickman as preaching “false doctrine!”). The exact spiritual, mental, and physical divisions of sexuality are explained nowhere in science or religion and it’s unreasonable to make strong claims about them. I read Alma as referring to some subset of the spiritual and mental feelings of sexuality persisting after this life. I believe many of the mental and physical aspects will be changed with the resurrection, and I’m not aware of why this is inconsistent with church doctrine.

Matt, while I recognize that Nick is talking about, “hopes/expectations/prejudices of many, if not most, Mormons,” but I’m not persuaded we’re talking about most Mormons. That’s what I asked for examples for. The notion sounds more plausible to me as we talk about it, but I still wonder whether most Mormons see things as I have (without acrobatics, mind you), or how Nick does.
-L- Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 8:06 AM
#67 “Lordy I hope I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m misunderstanding you, because that would be emberassingly naive and uninformed.”

The idea that sexual orientation is completely immutable throughout life is indeed called into question by counter examples from across the biological spectrum. I think this is highly relevant and deserves respectful consideration, not scorn.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 9:14 AM
HA! You are wrong! Anyone who thinks that asexual reproduction by a komodo dragon somehow means that a homosexual can willfully change his orientation is so laughably naive that they totally, completely deserve my scorn.

Did you have other “counter examples from across the biological spectrum” that outweigh his ridiculous examples, or were you just bluffing? If you do have some, I’d be interested to hear them and how you construe them to support an idea of reversing orientation.

As I already stated, gender and sexuality are not cut-and-dry. Nature shows over and over that sex is as varied and bizarre in nature as anyone could possibly imagine (for a great read, check out “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation). Case in point: several species change from one gender to another through natural development…but to somehow draw a social conclusion about that and use it as ammunition to marginalize homosexuals………….IGNORANT. And, again, deserving of all the scorn I have time to dish out.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 9:18 AM
If there is any social conclusion we can draw from the variations of sex in nature—and I seriously doubt that there is—it’s that we take sex way to seriously and have built up a strict moral code based on our evolutionary heritage and have tried to act like it is eternally binding.

But masturbation, incest, sex changing, cross-dressing, etc., etc., etc. are all norms in nature.

And that’s based on “examples from across the biological spectrum.” : )
-L- Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 9:58 AM
I’m not going to create a bibliography for this discussion, so you can call it a “bluff” if you like. But I am aware that there are examples from nature above and beyond those mentioned by MAC that show that sexual orientation, phenotype, and behaviors change over time. Whether this fact suggests that humans may find circumstances that can accomplish the same thing would be an interesting discussion, and is indeed currently discussed scientifically. Whether a person can “choose” orientation by deliberately fostering said circumstances does not directly extend from these observations of nature (especially when it is oversimplified as you have done), but the possibility is a relevant and interesting one that I think about on occasion.

If you want to heap scorn on this, well, I guess that’s consistent with the overall unnecessarily unfriendly tone I’ve noticed here. But I haven’t seen anyone marginalizing homosexuals here. And, being a homosexual, hopefully you’ll agree that that’s not my intent. And I’ll apologize in advance for being caught up in the contentiousness with the tone of my previous comments. I think I’ll try to tread more carefully in the future.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 10:46 AM
L,

I don’t mean to be as punchy as I come off. I’m a nice guy deep down, just stuck in the body of an A-hole. And I have a special weakness for bad arguments. Just disregard my tone and understand that I’m smiling when I dish it out (and happily take it back when I get caught with my own bad arguments).

This is something I’m working on.

Now back to the discussion:

You’ve accused me of oversimplifying, which really surprises me. I believe I was responding to an oversimplification rather than starting one.

You’ve declined to “create a bibliography” which usually means that you’re not aware of one. If there is a meaningful discussion on how a komodo dragon’s asexual egg-laying relates to human’s choosing to stop being homosexuals, I’d certainly be interested in reading it.

I do think that homosexuals are marginalized societaly and in the church….do you disagree with that? It’s an enormously complex issue that i don’t pretend to fully understand. Same could be said for sexual orientation itself. But what I do know is that it’s not good enough to say “Hey, clown fish can change from a boy to a girl, so I don’t want to hear any whining from you about how hard it is to be gay.” That’s repulsive to me and demonstrates a real ignorance of the same biology that it refers to.
MAC Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 11:19 AM
“HA! You are wrong! Anyone who thinks that asexual reproduction by a komodo dragon somehow means that a homosexual can willfully change his orientation is so laughably naive that they totally, completely deserve my scorn.”

Dude, I was being snarky.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Or at least at least saying so is easier than just admitting that your argument sucked.
Ron Schow Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I hope I can navigate the waters here, although they seem a little murky at times. The discussion at least in part is dealing with the question of mutability and sexual orientation. I think it is important to remember that there are probably 3 or 4 times as many bisexuals as homosexuals, if we use the HH Scale and call 6s homosexuals and 1,2,3,4,5s bisexuals. (That at least has some validity, but we can revisit this assumption if anyone wants to) The evidence for this is strong and from several sources.

It seems very obvious, then, that the largest group of those dealing with homosexual attraction–the bisexuals—actually have some choice. They can choose to focus on their heterosexual or their homosexual attractions. The ones, of course, who can do that most easily are the 3s. They are exactly in the middle.

I believe this explains a great deal of what some call “change” or mutability in sexual orientation. Yes, change occurs. A person who is bisexual can change back and forth. Unfortunately, those who are 6s do NOT have that luxery. Even the 5s are probably challenged to function heterosexually because they have so little heterosexual interest compared to the homosexual. So this explains why the 6s or 5.5s like Nick who try marriage have such a rough go of it.

Would this provide some kind middle ground …where Nick and Rick and -L- and others could all find some agreement?
Steven B Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 7:04 PM
“I believe this explains a great deal of what some call ?¢Ç¨?ìchange?¢Ç¨¬ù or mutability in sexual orientation. Yes, change occurs. A person who is bisexual can change back and forth.”

Ron, are you saying that significant changes in “attractions” occur or are you referring to a bisexual’s ability to function sexually in either direction?
Rick Jepson Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 7:16 PM
“Would this provide some kind middle ground ?¢Ç¨¬¶where Nick and Rick and -L- and others could all find some agreement?”

Yes, I think so. But I had the same question that Steven B. offered.
Ron Schow Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Steven B and Rick

I am referring to a bisexual’s ability to function sexually in either direction.

On the surface it may look like “change” but actually the fundamental orientation has not changed. A 3 has the ability to focus in either direction. 4s and 2s do also, but not quite as equally.

I like Elder Wickman’s term for it in the statement last August. He said…

“There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s no denial that one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…”

“Core characteristic” sums it up pretty well. It is at the core, at the center of who we are. I don’t think it changes much. Therapists I have talked to at LDS Family Services stress that the brain is pretty fixed once we are in our late teens…20s.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 10:29 PM
And this is sort of what I worry about. That “success” stories of bisexuals who can function sexually and emotionally in either homosexual or heterosexual relationships give an impression to general mormondom that homosexuality really is a “choice” and that people need to get over it.
Ron Schow Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 1:41 AM
As noted in my earlier post, a homosexual 6 is very different from a bisexual 3. You can’t lump them together. Period. But worry you should, because “general mormondom” has been doing exactly what you predicted they would. And in my opinion they have been doing it for a long time.
Rob Lauer Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 2:42 AM
Rick,

What the LDS Church now teaches is not necessarily what Joseph Smith taught. (which is why I am a Reform Mormon and not an LDS Mormon.)(

In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith did specifically say that he was talking about the mind of man; he equated it with intelligence and with the spiriit of man…say ingthat the intelligence of man “is a spirit from everlasting to everlasting,” and that “there was no creation about it.” Also, that “God never had the power to create [the mind of man.]”

My point was the same as Joseph’s: the mind/intelligence/spirit is an uncreated entity within the natural universe; it is what it is and cannot change its nature.
Rick Jepson Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Rob,

What I actually meant (and didn’t articulate well) is that I either disagree with your understanding of Joseph Smith meant or…if you’re right about J.S.’s intending meaning….I disagree with Joseph Smith. : )

I don’t think there’s much current LDS doctrine on “intelligence” to agree or disagree with since basically no one ever talks about it. But I also don’t think that there’s any reason to feel married to the idea that it’s a complete “self” that’s largely immutable. As I said, I think that strongly contradicts obvious data.

I’d actually be interested in talking with you quite a bit more about this in a month or two. I’ve started a major study about the doctrine of intelligence with a good friend….but won’t be able to really look at it until at least June.

==Rick
Villate Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I just read through all of these interesting and thought-provoking posts (and boy are my eyes tired), and wanted to add my two cents. Full disclosure ?¢Ç¨Äú I am an active member of the Church and consider myself Mormon. My political and social beliefs are fairly conservative, though I respect the fact that others believe differently, and I think that people can disagree in good faith. I try to take people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups. In my adult life, I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends, including two of my closest friends in college who came out after I first met them, but other than a brief period of wondering if my large number of gay friends meant that I was gay too (and quickly rejecting that idea), I have not experienced same-sex attraction or a gay lifestyle directly. I am a married, heterosexual woman in a happy and fulfilling relationship with my husband. We have three children together. This is my only marriage and we were both virgins on our wedding night. My views come from my interpretation of the scriptures and LDS doctrine as it seems to be currently expressed. I have read a few of my own thoughts here and elsewhere, but a few other issues seem not to have been addressed. I would appreciate knowing what others think and if I am off base.
It seems to me that ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial. I was taught, and I think Church doctrine is that our purpose in this life (in which I include the spirit world before our resurrection) is to prove ourselves worthy and capable of becoming like our Father and Mother in Heaven, accepting the Atonement of Christ to make up for what we cannot do. If we do this, we will receive ?¢Ç¨?ìall that the Father hath?¢Ç¨¬ù and become Gods, as He and She are. By becoming Gods, we will have eternal increase (indeed, I think this is the definition of ?¢Ç¨?ìGod?¢Ç¨¬ù), or spirit children. Eternal increase can only come to a union of opposites, male and female. A man or woman alone cannot have children, nor can two men or two women. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are, but it seems clear that somehow, there must be both a man and a woman together to receive exaltation by this definition. Our marriage relationships on Earth (and, I believe, in the spirit world, where we still have contact with each other until our resurrections) are crude and immature approximations of what this celestial relationship will be like, but they are a sort of practice for the real thing. Relationships that do not meet even this approximation are therefore sin. By the way, this also includes heterosexual marriages in which there is abuse, adultery, mistreatment, dishonesty, etc. If this is an accurate representation of Church doctrine, it is clear why the Church, whose mission is to ?¢Ç¨?ìperfect the saints?¢Ç¨¬ù in preparation for exaltation, cannot legitimize or countenance same-sex relationships.
Now, for the tricky and more controversial part. It is also clear that some people, for some reason, experience feelings of same-sex attraction that make it difficult or impossible to make a pre-celestial marriage. What does this mean for their eternal salvation and for their lives on Earth? It seems to me, and I think that someone mentioned this above (I didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t note the number of the post), that we are subject to various difficulties because we live in a telestial world, including but not limited to mental and physical handicaps, illness, living in abusive or dysfunctional situations, poverty, etc. I believe that same-sex attraction is a result of this telestial condition. I do not believe that God ?¢Ç¨?ìcreated?¢Ç¨¬ù it, any more than I believe He created cystic fibrosis or schizophrenia. Our bodies are made to function in certain ways. For most people, these functions occur without a hitch. For others, there are glitches. I know some people are going to be upset that I am ?¢Ç¨?ìequating?¢Ç¨¬ù same-sex attraction with horrible diseases, but I can see no other explanation for why it exists. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s simply a side-effect of our telestial existence. I do not think that Amulek?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s statement about the same spirit possessing one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s body after resurrection as before (Alma 34:34) applies here, since in my conception, same-sex attraction is not ?¢Ç¨?ìspiritual?¢Ç¨¬ù any more than mental or physical disease. Indeed, Alma tells us that when we are resurrected, ?¢Ç¨?ìall things are restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame?¢Ç¨¬¶corruption (physical, mental, sexual) raised to incorruption?¢Ç¨¬ù (Alma 41:4).
As it pertains to same-sex attraction, which I believe is not intended to be part of our eternal condition, this doctrine of resurrection leads me to believe that whatever it is that causes same-sex attraction will be removed when our bodies are perfected. In the spirit world, because we do not have bodies, I think that sexual desire, per se, will not exist, though obviously people will be drawn to each other. Joseph Smith and many other Church leaders have taught that no one will be denied a blessing to which they are otherwise entitled, and that in the Millennium, proxy sealings for those who died without marriage and children will be performed. In my mind, this means that there will be an opportunity for those who did not marry in this life but who are entitled to the blessing of marriage through their faith and obedience to seek a companion free from the burden of the issues that prevented them before. (I realize that this conception does not address those who did not successfully marry because of issues of emotional trauma or abuse ?¢Ç¨Äú I can only assume that they will be healed as well in some way. I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t worked this out yet.)
I read the Oaks/Hickman ?¢Ç¨?ìinterview?¢Ç¨¬ù and Elder Oaks?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ article in the Ensign on same-sex attraction some years ago (2001?) with great interest. I believe that the Church, as an institution, is trying to be more inclusive and to recognize the contributions of all members. The hierarchy is also trying to communicate the idea that we must love and care for all people, regardless of their situations in life, and that we are not justified in rejecting, marginalizing, or especially mistreating anyone. However, the Church and its members cannot risk ?¢Ç¨?ìadministering that which is sacred to those to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.?¢Ç¨¬ù It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a very fine and difficult line, and many people cross it either from ignorance, prejudice, desire to offend, or other unrighteous motives. I did not get the impression from either the article or the interview that members of the hierarchy consider anything less than ?¢Ç¨?ìself-control unto marriage?¢Ç¨¬ù to be a failure of the will or character flaw.
I think that where the institutional and popular Church have failed is in promoting the uniquely Western idea that everyone is entitled to a romantic relationship that is the greatest (or even only) source of emotional fulfillment and happiness in one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s life. I believe that although this may be to some degree true, it is not always feasible, yet this fact is glossed over. It annoys me to no end when General Authorities or Sacrament Meeting speakers go on and on about how marriage and parenthood are the greatest of life?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s joys etc. or when the Ensign publishes an article, as it did in the March 2006 issue, profiling someone who has married in spite of difficulties and knowing that the marriage is subject to unusual stress from the very beginning. It gives the impression that those who are not married are somehow missing out. I think Carol Lynn Pearson, in the most recent issue of Sunstone, summed up this attitude in her statement that falling in love is one of life?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s most remarkable experiences and needs to be honored no matter who it is that is doing it. Just because falling in love is good does not mean that people can fall in love at any time, with anyone, in any circumstance, and expect it to be sanctioned simply because it is love. Now, I am happily married, and my marriage relationship has indeed brought me a great deal of joy, but it is not my sole source of enjoyment and fulfillment in life, nor do I define myself by it.
The Church does a slightly better job of combating the (in my view) unfortunate tendency in our culture to identify ourselves by aspects of our personalities or experiences. I am sexually attracted to men, specifically my husband, but that is not who I am. It is merely a part of me. My membership in the Church, role as a mother, job as an editor, and so forth, are other parts. I find it hard to comprehend my sexual attraction to men being so important, so vital to my personality, that I could not conceive of myself without it. The Fourth Way described in this blog and its attending comments seems to be a reasonable, if lonely approach to living a life as a person rather than as a gay man or lesbian. I wish the Church would emphasize and explain more that not everyone will have an opportunity to marry in this life, but that it is worth the sacrifice to give up a worldly relationship (this advice goes for a lot of heterosexuals too). I believe that the Lord will judge those who opted not to make that sacrifice much less harshly than we in the Church have judged them, but I also believe that blessings will not be given to those who are not entitled to them. I suspect, based on what Jesus said about those who gratify themselves in this life, that he will say to those who enter into unsanctioned relationships that they have their reward.
This has been a very long post, and I hope I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t put anyone to sleep. I have been wrestling with these thoughts for some time, and appreciate the opportunity to express them. I hope that others will comment from their knowledge, experience and perspective and help me continue to refine my understanding of this topic.
Ron Schow Says:
April 29th, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Villate

What I find interesting about this whole long, detailed view of the afterlife that you have in your head is that it all is based on this nice tidy premise. The premise is that marriage can only be defined in this restricted way—

You said,

“Eternal increase can only come to a union of opposites, male and female. A man or woman alone cannot have children, nor can two men or two women. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are, but it seems clear that somehow, there must be both a man and a woman together to receive exaltation by this definition.”

I personally consider the idea that eternal increase is only about having baby after baby after baby, is a horrible, restricted, stifling view of the eternity. Creation is not just about children. To be eternally creative I hope will mean being creative in all kinds of ways. Maybe some persons would prefer to write beautiful symphonies, paint beautiful paintings, scult beautiful sculptures, write wonderful plays and wonderful books, create wonderful dances, etc etc etc. Maybe everyone won’t have to be eternally occupied in having babies and raising them. I have had wonderful children and enjoyed raising them, but life is much richer and fuller than just this one creative pursuit.

If you want to create this very narrow view of the next life around our Mormon tradition saying that it only works with a “male and female baby machine process” then you can have that view, I guess. I prefer to believe our LDS view of eternity is much grander and richer and more wonderful and that those with ALL kinds of creative gifts will have a place there. Two men and two women working together as well as a man and a woman are needed. Men and women have and will create many wonderful, beautiful things as they work together in various ways and combinations. I can see them all having a place in eternity.

Besides that, two women, a mother and a grandmother have raised many children. Two of our Church presidents were raised by widowed mothers (Joseph F. Smith and Heber J Grant, I believe). I suspect two men have also raised great kids, though I don’t know any examples right off. That process of women ONLY being involved, has produced very fine prophets. So, I don’t think even the tight little box you want to make around raising children can stand careful examination (oh, I think you are saying, you ABSOLUTELY have to have a father and a mother). It doesn’t HAVE to be done by a man and a woman.

Finally, it just amazes me that we belong to a church that radically redefined marriage for fifty years, and now you want to build up this view of eternity that completely ignores that whole history. The truth is that when you began to look at your premise about marriage and eternity, Mormons, of all people, should resist the idea that eternal increase can only be built upon this nice tidy idea of “oh it can only be this one way.” Marriage in our LDS tradition has been defined in several ways.

If we take away your premise that eternity can only be organized in this very restricted way (one man and one woman making babies), I believe all the rest of your argument in which you see gay people who don’t marry and have children as flawed and that they have to be fixed in the next life, as an idea that has no foundation and it falls down in a big messy pile once that foundation is gone.
Nick Literski Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 8:09 AM
Villate #84:
As a gay man who had his name removed from the records of the LDS church over a year ago, I’ll admit it’s difficult for me to see church doctrine as a final answer to complex questions of biology and social science. At the same time, I’ve been in that boat, and I think I understand where you are coming from. Most importantly, I realize you’re trying to make sense of a challenging topic, working from the perspective which you embrace.

Though you’ve been delicate in saying it, by your own admission you’ve equated homosexuality with a “handicap,” a “mental illness,” or some other “defect.” This seems to be the evolving positon of the LDS church, as evidenced by the Oaks/Wickman mock interview. What I find striking about such an argument is that it is never taken to its logical end.

For example, I have a dear friend who’s daughter is mentally handicapped. Rosemary (not her real name) is 42 years old, single, and still lives with her mother. She will likely continue to do so until the end of her life, which due to a physical condition may not be much longer. I have interacted with Rosemary, and do not find her to be “profoundly” challenged. She is quite bright in many ways, and my impression is that her challenges are in fairly narrow mental function areas. Now, it was one thing for Rosemary to be baptized at 8 years old. You should have seen, however, the turmoil that Rosemary had to go through, in order to satisfy her own desire to receive her endowment. She read all the Standard Works through more than once, and had repeated meetings with her bishop and stake president, in order to convince them that she was “accountable enough” to be allowed to make those covenants. In Rosemary’s case, her church leaders clearly did not see her as fully accountable for any alleged “sins.” They repeatedly told her she didn’t “need” an endowment, because she wasn’t accountable. After a couple years of constantly wearying the bishop and stake president, she finally received her endowment, and until her health prevented her, she served as a volunteer in the temple laundry for several years.

So here’s the interesting comparison. Some LDS, including general authorities, would like to say that as a gay man, I have a mental or biological “defect,” which is no fault of mine, which may prevent me from being able to marry, etc. However, unlike a person who genuinely has a mental or physical defect, these leaders do NOT extend to me a different expectation as to accountability. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to call me handicapped, but unlike those with other behavioral-related “handicaps,” they want ME to hold to their full standard of accountability.

Now, I’m a big boy, and I make my own decisions. I do think, however, that if LDS leaders want to push this “handicapped” theory, they need to be consistent, and also expect a different kind or level of accountability. If they don’t, then it reflects on their sincerity in making the argument in the first place.
Villate Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Rob, I think it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interesting that you use the word ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow?¢Ç¨¬ù in such a negative way. There is nothing inherently wrong with ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow?¢Ç¨¬ù; in fact, the Lord says that His path is narrow. However, some of your points are well taken. I thought about explaining that I believe there is more to eternal life than simply having babies. At least I hope so, in spite of what my seminary teacher told me. However, the post was just getting longer and longer, and I was despairing of ever being able to quit going on and on. Instead of writing ?¢Ç¨?ìeternal increase, or spirit children,?¢Ç¨¬ù I should have written ?¢Ç¨?ìeternal increase, which includes spirit children.?¢Ç¨¬ù Let me clarify, though, that my view is not as restrictive (not to say ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow?¢Ç¨¬ù ?Ø¬Å?) as it appears from my previous post, which only dealt with the aspect of eternal life that I thought was germane to the topic of the thread. As in our lives on Earth, which as I mentioned seem to be a sort of practice run for celestial life, there will obviously be more than merely baby machinery. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m sure you are correct that eternal creativity must mean more than just children and planets, even though the scriptures are ambiguous about exactly what that creativity will entail. I think there has been a great deal of controversy among the General Authorities as well about what it means to be ?¢Ç¨?ìeternally progressing,?¢Ç¨¬ù as well. The fact of the matter is that we just don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know. There are many mansions in the kingdom of heaven, and I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m positive that there will be all sorts of things going on in them.

However, canonized modern revelation (which I understand there are all sorts of problems and controversies with and individuals may or may not accept it) as set out in D&C 132 and elsewhere states that ?¢Ç¨?ìcontinuation of the seeds?¢Ç¨¬ù is the glory of exaltation. I take this to mean that if you do not have continuation of the seeds, you are not exalted, but ?¢Ç¨?ìremain separately and singly, without exaltation, in a saved condition, to all eternity?¢Ç¨¬ù (D&C 132:16-17). Now let me be clear: I am not sure that this is a bad situation to be in. I think that we will be satisfied and even content with the judgment we receive and the mansion to which we are assigned. As Alma says, we will know perfectly our guilt and our righteousness. We have this idea in the Church that if we don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ?¢Ç¨?ìmake it?¢Ç¨¬ù to exaltation, we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve lost the competition or something. I find myself falling into this mindset, and it probably shows in some of my views. A couple of months ago, a Relief Society teacher (who experienced a bad marriage and nasty divorce) stated in her lesson that she thought the Celestial Kingdom would be her in a house in the country with a bunch of dogs. Several women anxiously tried to correct her, but she looked at them as if they were crazy. I first thought to myself, no, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not what the Celestial Kingdom is like at all! Then I thought, well, maybe for her that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s exactly what it will be. She is certainly trying to do her best to follow Jesus, and He will judge her reward perfectly.

I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not sure what the last part of your reply is referring to. I assume you mean plural marriage? I didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t say anything about that. I did say that I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are. Whether some or all celestial marriages will be plural, I have no idea. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think it matters in this case because plural marriage and same-sex unions are not the same thing at all. By my definition, a plural marriage can still be celestial because there is still a union of male and female creating in that aspect of creation. That is not a redefinition of marriage. An expansion, perhaps. However, a same-sex union cannot, by its very nature, do that. I think your parenthetical remark indicates that you got that I was saying that. I also didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t say anything about widows raising children or gay couples raising children. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know how intelligences or spirit children or whatever are ?¢Ç¨?ìraised.?¢Ç¨¬ù I can only guess that there, as here, many individuals are involved over a very long period of time. If we have a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, I suppose we also have Heavenly Grandparents and Heavenly Aunts and Uncles. I imagine that the doctrine of sealing families to each other means exactly that, come to think of it. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s all academic, though because in this instance, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m only addressing the idea of what it means to be exalted according to my understanding of Mormon doctrine. The sociality we will enjoy in our resurrected state is interesting to think about, but there hasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t been a lot of authoritative description of it. Believe me, I wish the Lord would come to President Hinckley in a vision and say, ?¢Ç¨?ìLook, this is what it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s going to be like, and this is why.?¢Ç¨¬ù I even wish He would do that if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m totally wrong and He could correct me! But he hasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know why not. It seems there would be a lot less misunderstanding and grief for a lot of people. The basic set-up, though, of male and female creating an eternal family (among many other activities) seems pretty set in stone. Do you have scriptural or other doctrinal evidence otherwise?
Villate Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Nick ?¢Ç¨Äú Thanks for seeing that I am trying hard to understand this topic and still hold to what I believe. I respect the fact that others may not accept my beliefs, and if they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s their right. I am simply trying to explain why I believe what I do based on what the scriptures and Church leaders have said. I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. Anyway, I understand what you said about viewing same-sex attraction as a defect that will eventually be corrected (I hate the word ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù because it is so culturally loaded, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s why I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t use it ?¢Ç¨Äú it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s nothing to do with the fact that the General Authorities use it, in case anyone was wondering). That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s exactly what I meant, only the word ?¢Ç¨?ìdefect?¢Ç¨¬ù is so laden with negative connotation that I feel hesitant to use it. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s like the Old Testament?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìunclean,?¢Ç¨¬ù which didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t originally mean the same thing as ?¢Ç¨?ìdirty,?¢Ç¨¬ù but which unfortunately came to have that connotation. As you may notice, I put a lot of stock in words and their meanings. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s my business, I guess, as an editor. Back on topic. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t understand what you mean by ?¢Ç¨?ìaccountability.?¢Ç¨¬ù Your example confused me a little. Your friend was perceived by her Church leaders not to be ?¢Ç¨?ìaccountable?¢Ç¨¬ù enough to receive her endowment. She eventually persuaded them that she was in fact accountable and went to the temple. Are you saying that if your ?¢Ç¨?ìhandicap?¢Ç¨¬ù is having same-sex attraction, you should somehow have to persuade your Church leaders that you are released from certain requirements? Do you mean heterosexual marriage? If so, then I agree with you that people with same-sex attraction should not be required or encouraged to marry in this life if they cannot (I imagine that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a very large percentage of them). However, they do not get to have a different set of rules because they are different. A person with brain damage or incapacity to understand the concepts of the gospel is in a very different situation from someone who can understand those concepts but feels they do not apply for some reason.

I keep coming back to my hope and belief that things that prevent us from being happy and living as God intended for us to live in this life (yes, I do believe that heterosexual marriage is a part of what God wants and intends for us, though not the only part) will be corrected in the spirit world and that many people will be able to overcome the issues that plagued them here and receive all the blessings they should have. Same-sex attraction is only one of those things. However, people must in this life live as closely as they can to what they know to be right and rely on the Atonement of Christ to make up for the rest. I think many people take the easier way of giving in to whatever their situation may be without letting Christ take their burdens from them. I actually came to this conclusion when my mother, who was mentally ill for most of the last 20 years of her life, left the Church very bitterly and tried to take several of us children with her. By the end of her life, she had destroyed her marriage (and my father) and rejected nearly every belief she had once held in God, among other things. After she died, I thought a lot about her state in the spirit world and came to the conclusion (which I believe was communicated by the Holy Ghost in answer to my prayers) that once she was free of the chemical imbalances and other pains that she suffered because of her physical body, she would be able to see things much more clearly and perhaps understand what she needed to understand and repent of what she needed to repent of. I could go on about this, but that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s off-topic. As it pertains here, as I mentioned before, I do not believe that the conditions we suffer in the telestial world are necessarily part of the ?¢Ç¨?ìsame spirit that possesses our bodies in that eternal world,?¢Ç¨¬ù though those conditions naturally affect our development. I also believe that our judgment by God will be much kinder than our judgment by our imperfect and often cruel brothers and sisters, and I have to hope that what I can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t figure out here will be explained to me later.

I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know where that leaves someone like you, Nick. I really don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t. I feel like a jerk saying, ?¢Ç¨?ìToo bad, you just have to suck it up,?¢Ç¨¬ù but I guess that really is what I am saying. I wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t wish your situation on anyone, but it seems you have made your peace with it and with God, which is the most important thing for you. In my ignorant view (meaning that I have not had your experience), the Fourth Path seems to be the best way to handle same-sex attraction, but I have not lived your life. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s easy for me to say that I could live without marriage and children when I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m married with children. Easier, probably! I feel like I can sympathize with the General Authorities, who must come across to people as mean and intolerant when they say that the Church cannot countenance gay marriage or accept in full fellowship those who live in same-sex relationships. They?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re really not bigoted homophobes, they?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re just trying to apply the rules they think are correct. I would like to know if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve understood your analogy, though. Please enlighten me.
Nick Literski Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Villate,
First, let me say it’s a delight to read your posts, whether I agree with you or not. You have quite a talent for communicating how your views differ, without being critical of your audience.

I do have one point for your consideration. Like you, I pay a great deal of attention to connotation, as well as denotation. Much of this, of course, relates to a particular audience. When you use the term, “same-sex attraction,” please know that you are using a term which originated with, and is perpetuated by, the advocates of so-called “reparative therapy,” such as NARTH and Evergreen. The phrase is used by these groups, because they do not wish to acknowledge that there are persons to whom the noun, “homosexual,” applies. It has become the language of choice for certain Christian groups (including many LDS, though not all), who teach that so-called “same-sex attraction” is a defective condition which the person needs to “fix,” primarily through prayer and therapy (and in the case of Evergreen, playing basketball). For these reasons, Villate, the phrase is often irritating to homosexuals, in that it trivializes very personal, very deeply-felt needs and emotions. You can imagine, I’m sure, how you would feel if someone described your love for your husband by saying, “Oh, she suffers from opposite-sex attraction.”

“Same sex attraction” is also a namby-pamby, weak way for a closeted homosexual to describe himself, without having the courage to openly admit, even to himself, that he is GAY. I know. I’ve been there, and I did that.

With a topic which many see as controversial, there are bound to be language difficulties, 99% of which are entirely unintentional. In the Oaks/Hickman mock interview, even stranger language is used. The article is presented as the church position on “same gender attraction,” and uses the curious term, “gender orientation.” In one spot, they clearly equate “sexual orientation” with “gender orientation.” As I’m sure you know, “sex” refers to biological identity, and “gender” to sociological or psychological factors. When these church representatives repeatedly use the term “gender orientation,” they focus (intentionally or not) on societal roles, rather than on biology. The trouble is, in using “gender orientation,” they convey the idea that a gay man is somehow confused about being a “real man,” or worse yet, that gay men want to be women. Despite the stereotypes of an earlier generation, I can assure you that most of my gay friends are quite masculine, as am I. The choice of words used by these men, even in such a carefully-crafted document, unfortunately causes those they allegedly want to reach to bristle.

Use whatever words you like, of course, but just know that many gay men will NOT consider themselves “same-sex attracted,” and certainly not suffering from a “gender orientation.”

Now…you asked about my analogy. After sending it, I realized it probably wouldn’t communicate well. My intention was to poke at this whole idea of homosexuality being a “handicap,” as Hickman presents it in the mock interview. In the case of Rosemary, church leaders assumed she couldn’t be accountable for sin, because they didn’t believe (initially) that she had the mential ability to fully comprehend her choices. Her alleged “handicap” carried with it a set of different, some would say lower, expectations. Some church leaders wish to present homosexuality as a mental “handicap,” much like that of my friend, Rosemary. If this were true, there would be questions as to the culpability of a homosexual person who committed what would otherwise be sins. The very fact that these same leaders expect a homosexual person to adhere to the full LDS concept of chastity simply illustrates that their relatively-new idea of looking at homosexuality as a “handicap” isn’t really taken seriously, even by them. I’ll admit, mine was not a perfect analogy by any means, but I hope that this explanation at least gets my point across better.
Ron Schow Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Villate

As you say there is a lot we don’t know about eternal life. So what you think is set in stone, I don’t agree with. You define eternal life in a way I do not accept. You define eternal increase in a way I do not accept even though I use the same doctrine and scriptures. Then based on that you conclude gays are damaged goods and have to be fixed in the next life.

I don’t accept the idea that “multiply and replenish the earth” is just about having children. Maybe I’m like your relief society sister who likes dogs and the country. I believe the scriptures have multiple meanings. To me, replenish the earth means with music and art and dance AND children and so forth. Eternal increase (or seeds) may be planting flowers for all I know. Maybe everybody doesn’t have to do exactly the same kind of creative work for eternity.

So, presto. All of a sudden I don’t need to look at gays as damaged goods. They don’t need to be fixed. Sometimes I wonder why we want to put something in stone when we can look at it in several ways just as easily.

In their First Presidency message, the brethren say they “respect individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.” That suggests to me that we don’t have to view homosexuality as a damaged condition. It is a respected condition.

Certainly, Joseph Smith didn’t think of marriage in just one way. He was married to more than one woman and he was married to women who were married to other men, as I understand it. Once you start making radical changes to marriage, as he did, then it just doesn’t make sense to me to say, oh marriage can only be this ONE way.

I just assume there will be a lot in the next life we don’t understand yet. And I don’t see the stone that you do.
Villate Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Ron – Sorry I called you “Rob” before. Oops. Anyway, yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I can live with that. Maybe we’re both wrong. I remember on my mission tracting into a born-again Christian who railed at us for nearly an hour on his doorstep in the freezing cold about how we were going to Hell, etc. When we were finally able to get a word in edgewise, my companion said, “Well, we could say the same things to you.” I was pretty annoyed with her because that got the guy going again, but when he took another breath, I said something along the lines of “We’ll all find out when we get there, won’t we.” The guy just looked at me and shook his head. We were both certain we were right, but at least it stopped the argument.

One thing I do want to clarify is that I do not consider gays “damaged goods” in the way you imply I do. Thanks for the note on the term same-sex attraction, by the way, Nick. I like it precisely because it identifies a condition rather than a person, but I didn’t realize that some consider it offensive. I don’t like the Evergreen and similar movements because they seem a little too glib and the people in them (I’ve known a few) often seem so desperate to conform that they will clutch at any straw. Kind of like the “rebirth therapy” people who prey on parents of children with autism or attachment disorders who are so desperate to fix their children that they will do anything. Anyway. Everyone has flaws, some more obvious than others. I think I made it clear that I believe that many of the afflictions (of all sorts) we endure here are temporary. A person who is gay or lesbian may have a flaw, in my view, but he or she is not somehow less of a person because of it. No one is justified in abusing or belittling someone for any reason, and I think that is the point of the “respect people who are attracted to people of the same gender,” not that it is ok and we should all be happy to let people do as they will.

In my view, I have not set anything in stone, God has. I’m a pretty live and let live person, actually. However, just because I believe in letting people live their lives as they wish to doesn’t mean that I have to approve of them. My youngest sister lives with her boyfriend. I don’t approve of that and I think she is wrong to do it, but I can still love her and accept her as my sister even though I don’t think she’s right. I think this is a problem many people have – they can’t accept someone’s situation in life, so they reject the person. I think that is an incorrect way to approach people, and I think that Jesus would disapprove of it. Well, I know He would based on His actions and associations as reported in the New Testament. On the other hand, people who want to believe they are right, whether it be about their one true religion or their sexual behavior or the way they like to do their hair, often get defensive when someone disagrees with them, accusing them of being judgmental or intolerant or whatever as if those things are horrible sins (and they have become so in our culture, rightly or wrongly), when the person “judging” is simply expressing a belief or opinion. I believe that my interpretation of the scriptures and comments by Church leaders reflect the will of God in this case. Until President Hinckley has that vision that explains everything and describes it in General Conference, though, we’re stuck on either side of the issue. That’s fine. I just want to know what other people think of my ideas, since I don’t get much chance to discuss this topic with other people. I don’t have many close friends here that I feel comfortable discussing doctrinal matters with, and my husband and I have gone around and around about it and feel pretty much the same, so he’s no help there. I just want to know if my arguments are consistent, whether others agree or not. There’s nothing worse in writing than a specious argument!
Rob Lauer Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Nick,

I’m in complete agreement with what you wroe: “…I also don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think that there?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s any reason to feel married to the idea that it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a complete ?¢Ç¨?ìself?¢Ç¨¬ù that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s largely immutable. “

Fact is I can’t find anything in Joseph Smith’s writings to indicate that he ever taught that there was a complete “self” that existed before birth. In the D&C he taught that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” To me that means that the soul–the ESSENCE of what it is to be a fully realized human being–comes into being at birth.

In 2005 I wrote a couple of lessons on this for the Reform Mormonism Gospel Doctrine website. (You can access one of these lessons by clicking on my name abobe.) The speculations about our spirits taking part in a heavenly council and voting on issues og Agency, etc., seem to have come about AFTER Joseph’s death. (As did the doctrine that our spirits are sexually begotten by a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. THAT doctrine was first laid out by Orson Pratt–to whom Brigham Young gave the assignment of finding a theological reason for the practice of polygamy.) Brigham Young and others laid out the story of our spirits being “complete selves” and participating and voting in a pre-mortal council as a theological justification for deny the Priesthood to Negros.

But I can find nothing like this in Jospeh’s teachings. In “The Book of Abraham,” the council is a council of Gods who are delibertaing how to best organize an earth so that eternal intelligences might become humans (”in the iimage of the Gods.”). Nowhere in “Abraham” does it say that these intelligences were fully realized, self-aware personalites; it only indicates that they “will be” made God’s “rulers.”

I recently finished re-reading an excellent book “The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery.” The author is Jewish biblical scholar Richard Elliot Friedman. The book is divided into three parts–the last of which deals with modern science and monotheism–particularly the traditional understanding of creation ex nihlo and the Big Bang Theory.

In this section, Friedman lays out a theory about the eternity of matter, the Big Bang and the evolution of some matter from an non-intelligent substance into intelligent beings. Basing his broad theory on science alone, Friedman comes up with a theological theory that bears a striking resemblence to the later tecahings of Joseph Smith. (He even uses the quote from the Book of Job “where were you when the foundations of the earth were laid”–a quote used by LDS Mormons as a proof-text for the pre-existence of spirits.)

This book makes a very interesting read, so I highly recommend it. Below is the info on it. You can order it through Barnes and Noble.

“The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery”
by Richard Elliott Elliott Friedman
ISBN: 0316294349

The reason I brought up this issue to begin with was to make a point: Joseph taught that the mind/psprit/intelligence of the individual is eternal and uncreated. Therefore one’s basic nature is set and cannot be altered–because, according to the new Mormon Paradigm that Joseph was presenting–God, being the same type of being as man, was unable to create himself–or alter himself.

As a gay Mormon, this doctrine changed the way I thought of myself.

If the basic elements that make up my being are uncreated and eternal (MEANING, if they are all NATURAL), then I cannot change them–and neither can God. Intelligent human beings–heterosexual and homosexual–are completely natural; they are not CREATURES (meaning,CREATED beings.) Their nature is part of the natural universe–which as a system, has no beginning and no end. In the Mormon Paradigm, it is Nature that is supreme–not any single intelligent being, including God.

Nature can not be changed by man or God. Anyone–gay or straight–who honestly ponders their own sexual orientation and puts aside any religious or political agenda, will realize that they NEVER made a choice regarding their orientation; it simply is an aspect of their nature that they can either embrace or attempt to deny.
Matt Thurston Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Villate (#84) said: “It seems to me that ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial.”

I haven’t had time to read all of the responses to Villate’s e-mails, so I’m probably parroting something that has already been said…

It’s pretty simple… the danger with your reasoning is that the track record of religion (LDS or otherwise) with respect to defining what is and what is not right/true/holy/pure/moral/whatever is nowhere close to perfect. The church’s 100+ year mistake with regards to denying Blacks priesthood alone should give any Latter-day Saint pause. It is one thing to exercise faith in an unprovable tenet that only affects yourself, but quite another if it affects other people, especially if it is a class of people based on race, nationality, religion, sex, or sexual preference.
Ron Schow Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Villete

I sense that you don’t mean to offend anyone, but I am amazed by some of the things you write.

You say,

“No one is justified in abusing or belittling someone for any reason, and I think that is the point of the ?¢Ç¨?ìrespect people who are attracted to people of the same gender,?¢Ç¨¬ù not that it is ok and we should all be happy to let people do as they will.”

Our First Presidency is asking you to respect gay people, and you seem to think it is wrong to abuse or belittle someone. But you immediately imply that when someone is attracted to the same gender, it is NOT ok. And you imply that the attraction means they are going to “do as they will” like your sister who is living with her boyfriend, it seems you are saying Wow……attraction does not imply anything more than feelings. It is OK. It can be respected. It doesn’t mean anyone is doing anything. I would interpret what you say here as abusive, even if you don’t mean to be.

Then you say

In my view, I have not set anything in stone, God has.

I wonder what is it God has said that makes you so sure? Did Jesus say anything that makes you feel this way???

Then you said..

“….same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial.?¢Ç¨¬ù

OK, I have a relative who was a 2nd wife in polygamy. Her story was written up in a Church magazine. Polygamous wives were sometimes very, very close to each other. My relative was weeping when the 1st wife died. And the 1st wife said, “Don’t cry… we’ll be together soon again.” My relative was said to be “proud of the dying first wife’s love” right along with her love for her husband. But you seem to imply there is no “celestial relationship” between these two women. Here is yet another example of why I don’t really agree with your rather limited view of the next life. Nor do I believe anything you can find in the scriptures says there cannot be love and a “relationship” between these two women in the celestial kingdom. They are together in a marriage relationship after all. They have children of the same husband. Polygamy may be quirky that way, but I am really glad they could love each other when they might have felt otherwise.

But I really need to back off, because I sense you don’t mean any harm and we seem to be talking past each other.

All the best to you.
Ron Schow Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Villate

By the way, I completely accept the authority of the prophet to determine the Church position on gay marriage. I simply have been discussing my thoughts about things like the next life, creativity, and whether gay people should be “respected” as they are or whether they have to be “fixed” in the next life.
Villate Says:
April 30th, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Hi again Ron ?¢Ç¨Äú

You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re right, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean any harm. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not even trying to convince anyone, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m just trying to express my views and explain why I hold them. As I mentioned before, I don’t have a lot of opportunity to discuss matters like this, so I sometimes wonder if my reasoning makes sense to anyone but me. I understand that others may not agree with my premises, which is fine, but I hope that my arguments hold up, even if you or someone else disagree with my conclusion or the premises themselves. I did want to clear up a couple of things, however.

You wrote, ?¢Ç¨?ìOur First Presidency is asking you to respect gay people, and you seem to think it is wrong to abuse or belittle someone. But you immediately imply that when someone is attracted to the same gender, it is NOT ok. And you imply that the attraction means they are going to ?¢Ç¨?ìdo as they will?¢Ç¨¬ù like your sister who is living with her boyfriend, it seems you are saying Wow?¢Ç¨¬¶?¢Ç¨¬¶attraction does not imply anything more than feelings. It is OK. It can be respected. It doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean anyone is doing anything. I would interpret what you say here as abusive, even if you don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean to be.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I think I made it clear that same-sex attraction is not the norm and not intended to be normalized in God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s eyes, and I think I was clear about my reasons for believing this way, which you may or may not agree with. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think that attraction necessarily leads to action. I think Wentworth Miller is very attractive, but I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t spend all day dreaming about him or write him letters or send him naked pictures of myself. If someone does act on desires that are inappropriate (engages in sex with a person of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex to whom she is not married, or sends naked pictures of herself to celebrities), I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t understand what is abusive about thinking that this is wrong or even telling the person that they are wrong. You think I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong to believe as I do, but I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t consider that abusive. You think I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong. If you started calling me names or flaming me or something, that would be abusive.

You also wrote, ?¢Ç¨?ìI wonder what is it God has said that makes you so sure? Did Jesus say anything that makes you feel this way????¢Ç¨¬ù

The Mosaic Law and Pauline condemnations of homosexual actions are somewhat problematic for me because of issues I have with the translation and compilation of the Bible, so although I agree with the Biblical declarations of same-sex sex as immoral, I prefer to rely on modern revelation. Church leaders have in many, many instances clearly stated that homosexual sexual expression is against the law of chastity. Their reasons and explanations have varied somewhat, but the prohibition is always the same. I believe that they are inspired of God in this matter and most others, particularly when they go so far as to put out a declaration and practically canonize it, something which was never done with ?¢Ç¨?ìdoctrines?¢Ç¨¬ù such as Blacks not holding the priesthood or Jesus being married. That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s why I say that God Himself made this rule, not me. Not even the General Authorities. Jesus did not make many comments on sexual behavior in the canonized scriptures (though I imagine He made plenty that weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t recorded). He made a few in the Doctrine and Covenants, but those pertained to adultery, so I guess we really have no direct words from Him.

And last, about your plurally married relatives: ?¢Ç¨?ìBut you seem to imply there is no ?¢Ç¨?ìcelestial relationship?¢Ç¨¬ù between these two women. Here is yet another example of why I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really agree with your rather limited view of the next life. Nor do I believe anything you can find in the scriptures says there cannot be love and a ?¢Ç¨?ìrelationship?¢Ç¨¬ù between these two women in the celestial kingdom. They are together in a marriage relationship after all.?¢Ç¨¬ù

You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re right, there is a relationship, and that will continue eternally, like the relationships between all sealed family members and, I believe, between friends. However, these women are not in a lesbian relationship. They are both married to a man. Two women ?¢Ç¨?ìmarried?¢Ç¨¬ù to each other cannot have a celestial marriage relationship with each other by my definition. Correct me if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong about this, but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m pretty sure that women in polygynous relationships were not sealed to each other, only to their husbands. Other wives sometimes took part in ?¢Ç¨?ìchoosing?¢Ç¨¬ù a plural wife and of course they often lived together and formed close friendships, but these friendships were not marriages to each other. Do you see the distinction I am making?

I appreciate your ability to disagree without being disagreeable and hope that I have the same ability.
Rob Lauer Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Villate (#84) said: ?¢Ç¨?ìIt seems to me that ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial.?¢Ç¨¬ù

If one reads what is actually written in D&C 132, the jist of the entire revelation is not (as the LDS Church teaches) that monogamous marriage is essential for Celestial Glory, but that polygamy is being commanded as essential for celestial glory.

The current LDS theology is that to become Gods humans must be eternally married so that they can sexually beget the spirits of humans to live on the future earths that they will organized.

But as has been pointed out by several LDS scholars and writers, Joseph Smith himself never taught such a doctrine. According to Joseph, the spirit/mind/intelligence is uncreatedm eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal with God.

The doctrine of eternally married husbands and wives sexually begetting spiritual children was originally put forth by Orson Pratt as a justification for the LDS Church’s 1852 command to all of its members to practice plural marriage.

Perhaps procreation is not the purpose of marriage. In the scriptures, marriage is instituted to solve the problem of an individual’s (Adam’s) lonlieness. In earlier LDS endowments, the following dialogue took place:

ELOHEIM: Is it good that man be alone?

JEHOVAH: It is not good that man be alone, for we are not alone.

Also according to the traditional Mormon account of Eden, Adam and Eve were married while they were stil by their nature unable to have sex, let alone bear children. (see II Nephi 2)

So if companionship is the first purpose of marriage, why shouldn’t homosexual unions be allowed.

I wrote about a Mormon approach to humans sexuality at the Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine Class website. You can link on to that particular essay by clicking on to my name above.
Ron Schow Says:
May 1st, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Villate

Does it occur to you that you simply dismiss, as if it had no importance, the fact that these two women love each other and care deeply for each other.

You said…

“Correct me if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong about this, but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m pretty sure that women in polygynous relationships were not sealed to each other, only to their husbands. Other wives sometimes took part in ?¢Ç¨?ìchoosing?¢Ç¨¬ù a plural wife and of course they often lived together and formed close friendships, but these friendships were not marriages to each other. Do you see the distinction I am making?”

OK. I’m correcting you. SMILE

What is sealing, after all, except a formal process which only matters if there is, in fact, a deep connection manifest in real life. In other words, you said, same sex relationships BY THEIR VERY NATURE CANNOT BE CELESTIAL. But when I show you a same sex relationship which is obviously celestial you dismiss it on the basis that the love between these two women doesn’t matter–at least in your way of thinking. Don’t you realize that outward ceremonies are not nearly as important as a heartfelt connection?

I see the distinction you are making , Villate, and I think you are focusing on the trivial and ignoring what is important.

SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE CELESTIAL. And these two women will have one.
Mormonism and Same-Gender Attraction: Marlin Jensen Speaks « Blane van Pletzen-Rands Says:
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 PM
[...] of the opposite sex, and if you can’t do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for [...]
Villate Says:
May 6th, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I was out of town most of last week, and it seems the blog commentators have moved on to the PBS special, which I haven’t seen yet in its entirety, but I don’t want you to think I’m dodging your comment. OK Ron – let’s replace the word “relationship” with the word “union” or “marriage.” I did not dismiss the relationship between these two women as unimportant. I specifically said that it would exist, as would other friendships (which are not sealed) and relationships between relatives, siblings, and so forth (which are sealed). I just got back from visiting one of my very best friends who lives in another state – I imagine that should we awake on resurrection day as celestial beings, our relationship will continue and be “celestial” as well, and better than it can be here on Earth because it will be coupled with celestial glory, as Joseph Smith said. However, this relationship is not a marriage. Your relative and her sister-wife will continue to enjoy a relationship that will be deep and meaningful, but that relationship is not the same thing as a marriage between the two of them. They are united in marriage to a man, the same man in this case, not to each other. Their relationship as sister-wives or whatever you’d like to call them IS NOT A MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO WOMEN. Their relationship with each other may be just as fulfilling and important as their relationship with their husband, maybe more, but it is a different type of relationship from a marriage. I’m taking a legalistic view of this, I suppose, which you obviously don’t share. One of my friends once told me that he didn’t believe he needed to marry his girlfriend in the temple because, in his opinion, they would be together in the afterlife no matter what because they loved each other. I, however, believe (and I think this is Church doctrine) that just loving each other is not enough, though of course it is important. My friend and his girlfriend will still have a relationship in the afterlife, but it will not be a marriage. The ordinance of sealing, done by proper authority in a temple, must be performed, and then the people involved (whether monogamously or plurally married – I know what D&C 132 is about) must live up to their covenants and Christ’s atonement must be in effect through their repentance and His mercy in order for them to receive the blessings promised in the sealing ordinance. But the sealing has to be performed. And it has to involve a male and a female, and I’ve given my reasons for believing that above. That’s why it’s so important to marry in the temple and identify our ancestors and do their work and blah blah temple work. God’s kingdom, according to the scriptures, is one of order. And record books, evidently. That order means that there has to be some authoritative and actual ritual performed for a relationship – sorry, a marriage – to be recognized as such in the afterlife. I don’t consider this trivial at all. As I mentioned before, I consider that God Himself (Themselves?) set it up this way, not the Church, and that’s one of the reasons for proxy temple ordinances and for the time between death and resurrection. You may disagree with that, but I think I’ve laid out my reasons for believing as I do. Before you get on my case about people in bad sealed marriages or whatever, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WILL BE SEALED TO ANYONE HE OR SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEALED TO. I don’t know exactly how all that will be worked out, but I have faith that God will not force people to be together simply because they were both righteous and there’s no one else. And, since I can’t say it often enough, there is more to a celestial marriage than just hanging out together and making spirit babies. I also do not believe that being sealed in the temple automatically gets an individual to the celestial kingdom, so don’t assume that, either. Anyway, it’s bugging me that I don’t seem to be expressing myself clearly, since you seem to misunderstand or misconstrue my explanations. I hope this clears the air. Now back to “The Mormons.”
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 8th, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Because it hasn’t been a passionate issue for me, I haven’t been following this particular thread until I read Villate’s latest comment (#100). That prompted me to start looking at the comments that came before. They all seem to originate with Joseph Smith, whether his part of the D&C or his private teachings, such as the King Follett Discourse.

BUT, what if Joseph incorrectly interpreted his visionary experiences?! Suppose, for example, that when he traumatically separated from his body, his spirit encountered a reality–a Light–that differed surprisingly from what he expected? This is my assertion. I further assert that Joseph chose not to enter this Light in fear of having messed up. So, he chose to stick around and attach himself to another human being in order to fix things before daring to go into the Light.

As is often the case with spirits who have suffered a violent death, his spirit did attach itself to other human beings. He became what some current psychologists call an “earth bound spirit” (EB). He had an agenda to try to fix what he had misconstrued. That first other human being was Brigham Young. [Consider the strange experience of some witnesses reporting Brigham taking on the visage--the mantle--of Joseph at a critical time after the martyrdom and the ensuing confusion of succession.]

If you can even imagine such a possibility, what would be its implications? Certainly the very first would be a significantly different understanding of nature of God, celestial realms, manifest reality and us as human beings. The legalistic debate over the purpose of gender, marriage, gays, relationship, union, etc. would become irrelevant. Mormon (including LDS) theology would have to be over-hauled. All scriptures and related doctrines would need to be re-examined. Etc.

Rob, what would you imagine an author or playwright could do with that scenario? Do you think we or your students could collaborate on creating a modern Mormon fantasy?
Rick Jepson Says:
May 8th, 2007 at 3:03 PM
“He became what some current psychologists call an ?¢Ç¨?ìearth bound spirit?¢Ç¨¬ù (EB). ”

We must be reading differen psychologists.

The problem with your whole supposition is that it’s a “just so story.” You make certain claims that can’t possibly be scrutinized and then try to draw some conclusion from it. I personally don’t feel comfortable having my views of homosexuality in the church swayed by that sort of argument.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 8th, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Rick,

Thanks for taking my comments seriously. I’m pleased to inform you that my “whole supposition” is far more than a “just so story.”

For openers, I suggest you read my 2006 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium paper Healing and Annealing, which will probably upset you further. (I would be pleased to send a copy via email if you are interested.) Then I suggest a critical examination of Spirit Releasement Therapy, second edition, Headline Books & Co. (2005) by the late William J. Baldwin, D.D.S., Ph.D. I’m confident your understanding of psychological reality will be severely challenged by both documents.

I met Dr. Baldwin and his wife Judith at the TREAT III Conference in Kansas City to which we’d all been invited in March 1991 by conference founder psychiatrist Rima Laibow, M.D.. The conference was by invitation only, because of the extraordinary and controversial subjects presented and discussed. “TREAT” is an acronym for “Treatment and Research of Experienced Anomalous Trauma.” The seven year conference was designed to address issues arising in Dr. Laibow’s clinical practice and that of others that the psychiatric profession in general had been unable to take seriously up to that time.

At the time of my 2006 Sunstone presentation, I had not yet realized that the first two tapes in the series of six was not with Dr. Cheek, as indicated in my paper, but actually with Dr. Baldwin! I have carefully transcribed those tapes since presenting the paper and have updated it accordingly.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 8th, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Oops. The paper is called Annealing and Healing. Not the reverse.
Richard Jepson Says:
May 9th, 2007 at 6:39 AM
“which will probably upset you further”

HA! Certainly not upset by ghost stories. Not since I was a child.

I’d be happy to check out your symposium or anything you’ve written or read. Wondering how any of it could come anywhere close to substantiating the idea that Joseph Smith died, saw a light, chose not to follow it, and became “what psychologists call” and earth-bound spirit.

Nothing wrong with having or believing in a just-so story. I have my own private collection. But there is a problem with acting like they are more substantial than they are.
Richard Jepson Says:
May 9th, 2007 at 6:39 AM
Plus….what does this have to do with homosexuality?
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 9th, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Rick, you say: “?¢Ç¨¬¶but there is a problem with acting like they are more substantial than they are.”

You are quick to dismiss, but here is what the story has to do with homosexuality:

If my assertion has substance [that Joseph became an EB], regardless of the problem it causes you, the controversy about homosexuality becomes moot. Contrary to current LDS or Mormon doctrine, I further assert that we all have the freedom to choose our gender for whatever lifetime we are in and for whatever experience we choose to have within it. It’s all a part of the process of eternal progression (development, evolution). You don’t need to defend or deny. I’m simply sharing a compelling experience and asking to know those of others. You are always free to write if off, of course. It doesn’t make it less real to the “just-so story” teller. You say you have some of your own. Please give an example.
Rick Jepson Says:
May 9th, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Thanks for sharing. It doesn’t cause me a problem.

I have lots of my own, but I choose to keep them to myself.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 11th, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Rick #108,
A propos of my problem that you see so clearly as well as the tough you seem to want to be on the wrestling mat, I’m confident there’s a nursing story in you that can bless us, your blog friends. Is there not a tender, vulnerable place within that gay-aware, sensitive tendency within you that you seem fearful of revealing? How could you even consider a nursing career otherwise? And, BTW, why be silent about your own “just-so” stories? I once had a gay mentor who complained about my “unfailing exhibitionist” behavior. It’s true that I often play the fool and am seen as crazy by some, such as Clifton Jolley, my brother–and (obviously) you! That’s the risk of living a transparent life. It makes life more interesting and real.
Rick Jepson Says:
May 11th, 2007 at 10:45 PM
1. Not sure why you keep bringing up wrestling. Really bizarre. Sure not on my mind right now. Why is it that this keeps surfacing in your remarks to me?

2. No idea why you brought up nursing, either. Was it meant to be underhanded? Like a “male nurse” barb or something? Can’t really read you on this.

3. A sensitive tendency that I’m “fearful of revealing”. Huh? Where do you get this stuff?

Now that we’re through all that, let’s get back to the original objection. You have every right to believe any quirky thing you want about the details of gender identity or about the details of Joseph Smith’s death. But since those claims are unsubstantiated, why do you expect them to make a difference in this conversation? It’s like me saying, “Hey guys, this whole conversation about homosexuality is moot because I happen to believe that we’re actually in a holographic simulation and the programer that wrote the program is an asexual Martian.” Now, if that’s true, maybe it’s consequential. But since I have no way of proving it, it’s not any more persuasive than any other just-so story (e.g. Joseph Smith chose not to go toward the light, we chose our gender before birth, etc.)

As I already stated, I have my own set of unsubstantiated beliefs and insights. They are necessary for all of us. All great inquiry starts with them. But–importantly–it doesn’t end there.

Some of them I’m quite open about. Others I’ve kept entirely personal and not even shared with my wife. But, most importantly, I scrutinize all of them instead of offering them as unquestionable truths that somehow solve a very thorny argument.
Rick Jepson Says:
May 11th, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Also, I would certainly be interested in reading your transcript, which is a lot easier for me than listening to the session. Still have my e-mail address?
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 12th, 2007 at 1:08 PM
1. Not sure why you keep bringing up wrestling. Really bizarre. Sure not on my mind right now. Why is it that this keeps surfacing in your remarks to me?

Since I am at times a confessed “crazy” you should not be surprised by “bizarre” stuff on occasion. This reminds me of Fawn Brodie’s famous quote of Joseph Smith’s: “No man knows my history…If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself.” I wonder how many others in our Mormon culture feel that way? I know I do.

As for the wrestling thing, I first became aware of you because of your “Godwrestling” paper in the November 2005 Sunstone Magazine. You identified with the Biblical Jacob’s experience which gained him his famous new name: Israel. Since I have my own identification with this “Penuel” event, I believed this told me something important about you, which interested me greatly. It meant you had tenacity and determination and I wanted to test that perception. I’ve not been disappointed in your subsequent responses. Then, before writing #109, I looked up your posted bio and learned you have a long term ambition to wrestle in many (10?) different styles. I assumed that ambition was still alive.

2. No idea why you brought up nursing, either. Was it meant to be underhanded? Like a ?¢Ç¨?ìmale nurse?¢Ç¨¬ù barb or something? Can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really read you on this.

By no means was this meant to be an underhanded “barb”. On the contrary it was meant to show an appreciation for what seemed to me a remarkable span of capability and sensitivity. My wife expresses her gratitude for the strength, tenderness and extraordinary sensitivity of a male nurse during a recent emergency hospitalization. Would that there were more such men is this profession!

3. A sensitive tendency that I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m ?¢Ç¨?ìfearful of revealing?¢Ç¨¬ù. Huh? Where do you get this stuff?

Thank you for dispelling my wonder about your being fearful of revealing your sensitive side. Many in our Mormon culture are certainly fearful in this regard. Was this not one of original concerns for this blog thread?

Regarding your apparent objection to my “quirky” assertions, you say: But since those claims are unsubstantiated, why do you expect them to make a difference in this conversation?

You might make the same objection to young Joseph’s account of his first vision. It is unsubstantiated, since there were no witnesses. The LDS Church has made his verious unsubstantiated accounts its central claim to being the “only true church” these days, is this not so?

But this begs my point. I don’t know what you would accept as a “substantiated” claim, but I have offered a couple of things for your consideration. (I’ll send them to the email address on the website.) I’m just now reminded of a poem I wrote years ago when I lived in Ventura, CA and began wondering about the official Church policy of increasing intimidation of the Mormon intellectual community. A year later I was excommunicated. I called it:

Nineveh Revisited

When pressed for proof in Galilee,
He spoke of Jonah’s journey;
Amid the ruins of Zarahemla
He cited a Lamanite’s cry.
What will he say of Ventura?

That is, when and what does anyone accept as proof of anything?

I’m glad you are willing to read my transcript. You’ve motivated me to update it just now. To give you the bottom line to my original assertion of Joseph as an “EB”, for me that assertion has been resolved as of November last year, when I watched Joseph being escorted into the Light (note capital letter) by the spirit of my late father. Yes, it is a private experience, but I’ve not been bothered by that attachment since.

It was the purpose of my paper to invite others to share any similar or related experiences. That’s why I went out on a limb. No one, except the assigned respondent to the paper, has come forward. Is that because of fear or because my experience is unique? Michael Quinn has assured me that I am NOT unique, which has been comforting. I still wonder how many others of our people are plauged by such attachments.
Square Peg Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Rory,

If I had been in the sacrament meeting where you presented this talk, I’m pretty sure I would have stood and cheered after you were finished. Seriously.
Dan Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Rory had alerted me ahead of time to his speaking assignment, so I attended this sacrament meeting. There really was a very different feel in the room when Rory spoke: people were paying attention! From the opening scripture, which really brought a great spirit and fit perfectly the message, to the end, folks recognized that here was an honest, thoughtful, well-prepared reflection that didn’t trivialize scripture in the least but still directly addressed reasons to be hesitant about being carelessly literalistic about it. And who could argue with the Borg concept about its being a sacrament of the sacred?

I stood nearby as quite a few folks grabbed him afterward, and I was glad that one of them said to him, “I like the way you think.” There was a counselor in the stake presidency on the stand whose face I tried to read during the talk but couldn’t. But as Rory was speaking, the thought crossed my mind that if I were in that role, I’d figure out a way to send Rory on the road with this, taking it to all the wards in the stake.

Dan
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Rory,

After reading the first two comments by Square Peg and Dan, I decided to read your talk after all, despite my initial prejudice that this was just another of so many such numbing talks in my dim memory of attending the Mormon Church. I am proud of you! This is surely an excellent example of what Ken Wilber calls “skillful means” in communicating new understanding and awareness. You have become another of my teachers.

Namaste, Eugene
Dave Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Rory, quite a talk. I’m surprised you didn’t reference D&C 77 in there somewhere, always a nice point of departure for the idea that not all scripture is intended to be taken literally.

It’s possible to think that much of scripture is better served by a figurative interpretation, yet support a literalist rhetoric in church. The problem for a church as an institution rejecting the literal approach is evident from the failure of liberal religion over the last generation or two: they just lose their center, their focus. And there’s always the problem of elitism that lurks just below the surface of most rejections of literal approaches to scriptural interpretation.
Rory Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Thanks for the supportive comments, everyone, and though Dan was there, I think his praise is a bit generous. A few with rapt attention, some impassive, some quizzical looks, and at least one guy on the back corner whose neck was going to pay dearly for the position he was sleeping in.

Dave, I’m interested in your comment about a figurative interpretation and a literalist rhetoric. Would you care to expand on that a bit?
Saint Holiday Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Rory:
There is nothing modern in this approach to scripture. It was prevalent among the 4th century academics. Furthermore, it is meaningless until related to specific propositions of scripture. Do you classify all accounts of miracles in the standard works as unhistorical and figurative? If not, which of the many supernatural events described in the texts would you accept as literal and factual? What formula would you employ to make that determination? Most importantly, what of the miracles allegedly performed by Christ? Did He heal others? Did He walk on water? Did He multiply the loaves and fishes? Was He physically resurrected? Where does your thesis lead us when we apply it to particular events?
Chris Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 4:24 PM
That was great. I wish that more talks like this were given in my ward. Unless these things are personal, I think there is no point in talking about them.
Square Peg Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Dave,

I agree that a literalist approach–and literalist rhetoric–are probably in the best interests of the institutional church. But do you think it’s possible to soften or adjust that top-down rhetoric in a way that would help the minority of church members with a non-literal perspective feel more accepted and valued? Is there room for church leaders to be less dismissive of the non-literal perspective–and somehow encourage acceptance of the few members who prefer that approach–without abandoning its own literalist traditions? I really hope so. Because my Utah County ward is definitely not a comfortable place for us non-literal folk. And IMO, the kind of language in the Approaching Church History news release certainly doesn’t help.
Dan Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 4:31 PM
Saint Holiday,

Surely you’re not saying Rory needed to address these questions in a sacrament meeting talk? If you’re hoping to push the discussion forward here, I think these are great questions for conversation.

Borg agrees with you that this isn’t a new approach to scripture but an re-emerging paradigm in churches today after a long phase where enlightenment thinking in many ways transformed scripture into statements of factual propositions and a litmus test for right beliefs about God rather than writings that call us into relationship with the sacred, that lead us to trust in God..

Dan
Chris Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 9:22 PM
Good point Dan.

I have moved past the concrete interpretation of scripture but try to look at things from a variety of perspectives. What really changed things for me was a talk one of my professors gave about Dante’s Divine Comedy and the essons it could teach Latter-day Saints. He gave a rudimentary definition of scriptural exegesis and the four ways of interpreting scripture that go along with it. Since then, the scriptures have increased in their value to me, and have helped come closer to God then the literal readings I gave them in the past.

I wish that we could move beyond whether or not the Book of Mormon, or any book we hold as scripture, is authentic and seriously ask what does it offer, and will it help us approach God as Joseph Smith said it would. Until we do, we will be missing what the scriptures really offer us. A chance to come, as Rory so aptly put it, into the presence of God.
Dave Says:
July 18th, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Rory, I guess if the standard is literal interpretation, then everyone is on the same page. Even those who prefer a figurative or allegorical reading of this or that text at least know what the accepted view is that they are are disagreeing with for a given text. But if a symbolic or figurative view becomes the rule, there is too much diversity — Where do you draw the line? Everything can’t be figurative. And how do you rank or evaluate different symbolic interpretations? Can a symbolic or figurative interpretation ever be wrong? Which isn’t to say that can’t be a fruitful approach to personal study or interpretation, it just points up the difficulty of adopting that approach as an institutional standard.
Mike Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 1:38 AM
Is God literal or figurative? How can one possibly arrive at the literal existence of God from a figurative text written by those who are supposed witnesses of Him? God is not figurative. His interactions with mankind are not figurative. The Spirit witnesses this to me as I read. Does the Spirit testify of non-literal events? Is the atonement itself figurative? What we should be doing is taking literal, and sometimes very sybolic accounts found in scripture, and by way of the Spirit, figuratively apply them to the circumstances of our own lives. This will hopefully lead us to greater faith, repentance, and recommitment.

Spiritual literalism and modern thought are perfectly able to go hand in hand – as long as both are truth. Modern thought echoes ancient thought regarding the impossibility of the resurrection. The scientists’ evidence continues to pile up in our cemeteries. I still testify that Christ is resurrected. Your remarks, though intellectually stimulating, makes God figurative, thereby making our salvation figurative.
Nick Literski Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 7:18 AM
If I had a dollar for every time Ive heard LDS members (often tearfully) claim to have “felt the spirit testify to them” of something patently false (such as mythologized church history events, ala Wreck of the Glory, told as if they were objective truth), I’d have been able to retire a long time ago.

I am reminded of the time a friend of mine, who was serving as stake relief society, asked me about a story she was going to tell in her talk to the women of the stake. Most of you have heard it—it was a dramatic story about artist Del Parsons, claiming that he ran around the church giving firesides about his painting of Jesus in a red robe, and that in one fireside, he unveiled the painting, leading a troubled young woman to stand up, proclaiming that the painting illustrated the personage who held her after her parents were tragically killed in an automobile accident, etc. I explained to my friend that the story was entirely fictional–that Del Parsons had, himself, openly denied that he ever gave firesides about his painting, let alone had such a dramatic reaction occur. My friend was briefly depsondent, but then recovered, saying “Well, I’m going to tell it anyway!” She didn’t care that she was telling a complete falsehood. She cared that it made her “feel the spirit.”
Chris Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 8:17 AM
That is just plain wrong. Those kinds of stories only help in the short term if they help at all. Those that I know who are struggling with their faith, or have abandoned it altogether, had those kinds of stories as the core of their testimony. Your friend may not care, but there many others who will, and when they find out they have been lied to it will not be pretty.
Rory Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Good questions being asked.

Saint Holiday:
As to there being nothing modern in this approach, I did say I was late to the party. That said, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t classify everything as figurative, note that I did say that scripture contains all elements of literature, including historical accounts.

Further, while I can personally settle on historical/mythical conclusions for specific events, it would be folly for me to suggest others accept my conclusions. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not advocating a fully-adopted figurative stance, nor am I advocating the Church try to determine what is literal and what is figurative. (That would be folly, too). What I am advocating is that we allow room for individuals to explore scripture in this way.

That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s all warm and fuzzy and bunnies, I know.

Dave, thanks for your additional thoughts. I agree that a symbolic or figurative approach cannot become the rule. Just to reiterate here, so I am communicating clearly, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think the non-literal approach is the only approach nor the only right one, but one that we might explore as individuals and one that I have found valuable and beneficial.

Mike ?¢Ç¨Äú I agree that spiritual literalism and modern thought are compatible, in your words here: as long as both are true. So, I turn the question back to you ?¢Ç¨Äú when they conflict, what do you do?

The point I want to stress is that there is weakness and folly when we hold to either approach exclusively. Set aside the institutional approach, I will grant the need for a strong literal rhetoric there, I am talking about us, as individuals.

My natural inclination is to be skeptical. But if I apply that skepticism exclusively as I read the scriptures, I am contending with the scriptural accounts. I am judging them. I am forcing them into my preconceptions and I am closed to any chance for them to work in me.

On the flip side, if someone approaches scripture in an exclusively literal sense, they are reading the accounts in a narrow way as well. They are forcing them into their preconceptions, and they are not allowing room for the text to work in them.

Perhaps my limitations in communicating this are far too evident, but my concluding paragraphs are sincere. A radical stance on either side limits the power of the scriptures.
Saint Holiday Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Rory:
You’ve clarified your meaning for me, and I thank you. I think I would have understood your sermon better if you had presented examples. I believe the scriptures are full of similitudes, many of which were intentionally vested in the text, and it is entirely proper and profitable to look for them and to teach them. The instances given of the life of Joseph, for example, present a wonderful prophecy of Christ, of His character traits and of events in His life. During my 30 years of teaching Gospel Doctrine classes in Sunday School, I have often pointed to the types and shadows and similitudes in the scriptures, and no one in authority has ever admonished me or reproved me for the practice. I have never heard anyone in the Church say that we should present only a strictly literal interpretation of scripture. In fact, I have been taught otherwise. The Holy Ghost manifests the full meaning of scripture to our minds. I would not want to frustrate the Spirit by closing my mind to the vast treasure of figures and similitudes in our canon.
Parker Says:
July 19th, 2007 at 6:01 PM
Rory,

Thanks for posting this. It provides some additional fodder for my Sunstone presentation where I am going to discuss the earlier paradigm (literal) and the emerging paradigm (less literal) in Christianity, and how they show up in Mormonism (both paradigms can be found among your respondents).

Parker
Gordon Hill Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 4:03 PM
This is very interesting. When I was a literalist, I felt that I had to defend the idea of god because somehow my arguements might make a difference. I sense one person in this blog may believe similarly. Now, I understand that arguments for and against god don’t effect gods existence or none existence. God either exists or he doesn’t and the arguments can’t change the reality of that.
This was very freeing for me because I felt that I could think any thought or idea without feeling guilty that I was disappointing god.
I realize this is very elementary but I live in a Mormon community and I often met people who believe that there words and thoughts can uphold gods existence or the churches viability, so they are always on guard against saying and thinking inappropriate thoughts. What a heavy burden this is!
So I say, speak freely and think freely, god will not be diminished by our silly ideas.

Gordon
Rick Jepson Says:
July 20th, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Beautiful talk, Rory. thanks for sharing.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
July 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 AM
This scripture business is interesting. My wife and I often have disagreements over the significance of the Bible, for instance. From her perspective as an evangelical Christian, the Bible is the only legitimate scripture. Mormon scriptures have little value in her view. Because of my Mormon upbringing I have never been locked into viewing the Bible like that. It was while I lived in Provo for a few months in 1979 that I audited a BYU course called “The Bible as Literature” as taught by Arthur King that my horizons were stretched and my prejudices penetrated. I had never seen nor valued the beauty of those classic words before, especially the KJV. My attitude changed.

The Book of Mormon has always seemed rather two-dimensional to me, except when it quotes Isaiah verbatim as if from the KJV. It wasn’t until January 1965 that the BoM spoke to me in a way I’d never expected. It came alive as if it were an imbedded personal letter. It didn’t matter what those same words meant to anyone else, let alone the official Mormon Church interpretation. The first verse that caught my attention was 3Ne22:6–identical to KJV Isaiah 54:6–and it moved me like no scripture had ever moved me before. I had no idea why this was happening at the time. It didn’t make rational sense, but I couldn’t disregard the emotional impact. Something was speaking to me from within and I felt the need to honor its right to do so. It wasn’t until weeks later that I made a connection between that verse and a puzzling dream I’d had on Joseph Smith’s birthday weeks earlier. It began to make rational sense. I won’t bore you with details, but over the years since, that chapter, 3 Nephi 22, has become my favorite of all scripture. Since the impact of that initial verse, most of the others have opened up in time to continue giving new perspectives on current life events. It is uncanny, but deeply meaningful. I cannot read those words even today (and only in the KJV translation!) without having a rush of meaning.

I wonder who else has such a gut reaction to those classic words. I wonder what other words have a sense of imbedded meaning to any of the rest of you. Rory, is this even close to what you meant by: “So to get beyond a literalist reading we must approach scripture in a way that allows it to work in us”?
Times & Seasons » Hearing Voices Says:
July 24th, 2007 at 6:36 AM
[...] journal of personal writings by LDS men and women. For that matter, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d love to see one for men only. But those are someone else?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s projects. Mine, as editor of Segullah, is fostering the female [...]
Paracelsus Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 3:31 PM
The content of this blog is interesting, however the word “modern” is used poorly and anachronistically throughout. Modernity is a whole field of study and should used with more thought. For a blog in which one is criticing interpretation of writing and language, one must be aware of ones own language.
Rory Says:
July 25th, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Paracelsus,

Fair enough. I’m always open to correction, if you wish to elaborate. In any case, stick around – one day I may just try to use epistemological.
DKL Says:
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:31 PM
Nick Literski: …it was a dramatic story about artist Del Parsons, claiming that he ran around the church giving firesides about his painting of Jesus in a red robe, and that in one fireside, he unveiled the painting, leading a troubled young woman to stand up, proclaiming that the painting illustrated the personage who held her after her parents were tragically killed in an automobile accident, etc…. the story was entirely fictional?¢Ç¨Äúthat Del Parsons had, himself, openly denied that he ever gave firesides about his painting, let alone had such a dramatic reaction occur.

Nick, I don’t care what Del Parsons says about those firesides and that dramatic reaction. His painting illustrates the personage who pulled up next to me in the parking lot of a bank and tried to sell me speakers out of the back of his van. And if I ever see him again, I’m going to kick his ass.
fontor Says:
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:06 PM
I believed in the literality of scriptures all my life, until I realised that they described events they couldn’t possibly have happened. Sounds like this is what you’re describing.

So then what do you do? Dump your belief in scripture, or go non-literal? As for me, I somewhat reluctantly became (I suppose what you’d call) a New Atheist because I didn’t see the point in taking the scriptures figuratively.

It sounds a bit like you are taking refuge in non-literalism so that you can salvage your dearly-held beliefs. It’s a normal human thing to do, but I question how honest that is. I also echo the question posed by Saint Holiday and others: if you decide to take some of it figuratively, why not all of it? And isn’t this just another way of saying it’s not really true? And if that is what you’re saying, why believe in it at all? Unless you, you know, like it, which isn’t a good reason to believe things.

As a Latter-day Saint, I would have loved this talk. Now it just sounds like someone clinging. Or picking and choosing. Neither is very noble.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 5:39 AM
Any grapple is more noble than just walking away. And to say that one can’t find deep, overwhelming meaning in non-literal scripture is just plain silly. It’s actually quite easy to find literal and figurative distinctions in the scripture, and when people pose the “doesn’t that make all of it false” question, I have to wonder how much scripture they’ve read. Just like modern Mormons write, read, and enjoy the Work and the Glory without ever thinking it’s a true story, ancients wrote pseudopigrapha all the time and spotting it isn’t too tough.

What on earth could be wrong with picking and choosing? How is it not noble? I’m baffled by that. It uses your own inspiration, reason, logic, education………sounds great to me.

Maybe you’re the one clinging to a decision you haven’t come to terms with.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 5:46 AM
I don’t want to beat this to death, but I sure can’t understand anyone who’s “sure” about their stand on things like this. When someone tells me that things “couldn’t possibly have happened” I’m just as underimpressed as i am by the literalist in Sunday School who “knows” that such and such happened in such and such a way.

Surety lacks vigor. It just seems lazy to me. I’d much rather continue down a frustrating, complicted, convoluted, life-long struggle to ferret out truth than be comfortable in either group of people who are “sure” or who “know” about anything. It makes me hard to be married to and no one wants to sit by me in elder’s quorum….but I’d sure rather have than than dogmatically claim that I “know” one way or another.
DKL Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 8:25 AM
Rick Jespson, you seem awfully sure about that. Some people would say that there is nothing noble about clinging to historically repudiated stories recorded by primitive tribes and modern impostors.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 10:29 AM
1. LOL.

2. “clinging to…” I may not have been very clear on what I meant.

I don’t cling to any obviously inaccurate accounts. But I remain undecided on many records–ancient and modern. I’m suspect of anyone who is “sure” that they are true or that they are false. And in my experience that surety comes from mental laziness and insecurity. I’ve not commonly found someone who’s dogmatic stand comes from being more informed than others. And sorry….nothing noble about that.

(As an aside, I also wonder about your sarcastic humor in a discussion like this….where does that come from? Aren’t you at peace with where you’re at?)

3. Back to the issue of seemingly inaccurate accounts having powerful meaning. I think that they certainly can so long as they are taken seriously and simultaneously accepted as symbolic. The temple is a clear example: a reconstruction of a classic human story that doesn’t (in my opinion) claim to be accurate history but that attempts to answer the same questions that rituatl retelling of those kinds of stories have always addressed. Where do we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going?

The other big one for me is obviously the story of Jacob wrestling the angel (or wrestling God). I don’t dogmatically accept that its factual history and seriously have to doubt that it could be. But the story remains exceptionally powerful to me and has been a real foundation for my spiritual life. And….here’s the kicker….it can function like that without my accpeting it as a piece of 100% accurate history.

The other obvious example to me is the Book of Abraham. You could hardly ask for a more dubious document. The history of its acquisition and “translation” make my stomach turn. But I don’t think you can find a better example (maybe with King Follet) of Joseph Smith’s theological development or striking philosophical contributions. So I love and hate the document (just as I love and hate the church…and just as I both fight and make love when I wrestle……..see, there’s that pesky Jacob again).

I can’t say for sure that any of these three examples is strictly factual or not. But I do know that they all represent a real truth….a truth that someone was trying to communicate. They still move me and continue to fascinate me despite all the misgivings.

You can say that’s not noble, but I have to wonder about your grounds. I’m certainly much more impressed with those who grapple through that—depsite the headaches and grief—than those who sit idly in those two painfully similar groups of people who simply “know” that its all true or who “know” that it’s all false.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 10:34 AM
P.S. I always manage to come off as an A-hole in these posts, even when I’m trying not to. Sorry if I did here. Re-reading my post its hard to tell. Anyway, no offense meant.

P.P.S. Where are you in Boston? My mission was out there: Worcester, Malrboro, Dorchester, Salem, etc. Loved it. Haven’t been back and would really love to take my wife there someday.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Fontor, same thing…hope I’m not sounding too aggressive. I checked out your Web site and got a kick out of it.

Let me ask, why call yourself an “atheist” instead of an “agnostic”? How is the certainty of atheism different to you than the certainty of belief that you had as a missioanary?

You’re obviously not an intellectually lazy person……but to me your certainty on this particularly point just seems like it doesn’t require much work. I don’t like any dead-end philosophies, anything that stifles exploration. If you’re trully claiming outright atheism (which even Dawkins and Shermer don’t do), it seems that you’re comfortable with your opinion and don’t want to be bothered further.

So, in prinicple, what makes that different than the guy sitting next to me in sunday school who already “knows” how everything is true and needn’t be bothered with my questions?
DKL Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 8:59 PM
Rick Jepson, I intended my first comment (about you seeming awfully sure about that) as a joke. But the rest of it I’m serious about. Many people have written off what other people consider scripture, because they’ve just got different priorities. If the Bible is just a myth, then why not read Greek tragedy instead? It contains just as much symbolic truth.

But the reason I’m so prone to sarcastic humor is because I’m exceptionally comfortable with where I’m at. You can read my story for where I’m at in the church right here. It also touches on a few of the aspects of atheism that you bring up with Fontor.

I live in Milton, specifically.
fontor Says:
August 5th, 2007 at 7:37 AM
Hi, Rick Jepson and everyone.

First off, I’d like to clarify the definition of atheist. I used to think atheists claimed to know that there is no god, and from reading your comments, it sounds like that’s the definition you’re using. Imagine my surprise to find that no atheist actually claims this (that I’m aware of), and certainly no one can make such a claim on any solid basis. And in fact you’re correct that Dawkins et al do not make such a claim. But to say they’re not atheists is rather absurd, because who else would be? What atheists tend to say is: given the evidence that we have, it is extremely unlikely that any god exists, to such an extent that we can (provisionally) work off the assumption that there isn’t one. Moreover, many atheists, including myself, would also allow that scientific evidence for a god is in theory possible, and if it comes out we’ll change our minds, but we’re not holding our breath. Such evidence has not been forthcoming, and looks less and less likely to as more and more aspects of the world and universe have been explained without any kind of ‘god hypothesis’. So I don’t see it as realistic to hold out hope for it to be true, though I actually would love to be wrong because I don’t like the thought of dying and not existing, and all that.

With that in mind, I suppose I did open myself up for your comment when I said that things in scripture ‘couldn’t possibly have happened’. That does sound like someone who’s certain, and certainty is not really on offer around here. I do agree with you that smug certainty isn’t really helpful, and I regret giving that impression. If I had phrased it more carefully, I’d have said that the events in scripture are not supported by findings from biology, archaeology, linguistics, physics, and on and on. If they had happened, we should expect to see certain things that we don’t. (Unless a trickster god is going around hiding evidence just to make things difficult.) And so we can be reasonably confident that it is extremely unlikely for those things to have occurred. Or if I’d been feeling less verbose, I’d have said that these things ‘couldn’t possibly have happened, given the evidence that we have‘. I think that’s fair, and forms one of the assumptions behind the original post.

So where does that leave us? Still on the question: if scripture isn’t true, might it not be nonetheless useful to us? My answer is this: the LDS church makes no such claim. It takes the strong view — that these writings are literally true (with some exceptions, e.g. Job). Therefore I am disinclined to regard such a claim with much seriousness. If I did, I’d say much the same as DKL: why then are scriptures held in higher regard than other good books? Fairy tales have good moral lessons in them, but I don’t think I’m likely to see missionaries carrying them in leather cases anytime soon. You know as well as I that Latter-day Saints in the main regard the Book of Mormon as ‘the most correct book’, and the Bible as the word of god when translated correctly. And the Book of Abraham to have been translated from papyri with the aid of heaven. Is that so, or is it no?

No, it’s not enough for it to be useful or good moral instruction. It has to be true. If it’s not true, then how moral is it to misrepresent a human book as divine?
Rick Jepson Says:
August 5th, 2007 at 5:33 PM
DKL: I meant my “LOL” as a recognition that you were joking. I’ll read your link later tonight and get back. I was never in Milton, can’t even think of where it is….I’ll look that up to.

fontor: thanks for the thoughtful response, and I agree with what you’ve said and appreciate what you’ve clarified. I’m not in a place where I can write a whole lot right now…so I’ll be back.
DKL Says:
August 5th, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Rick, I mistakenly implied that you didn’t recognize my first comment as a joke. I meant to say, “I intended only my first comment as a joke.” Sorry about the misunderstanding.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 5th, 2007 at 8:51 PM
It’s crazy to me how hard it is to understand each other’s subtleties in an online forum. sorry for the misunderstanding.

Look forward to continuing this. Although with the symposium coming up this week, I may be absent for the next few days. you know….finally starting to prepare a tiny bit. : \
Mike Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I have yet to see the film, but I do hope that Dutcher is willing to edit the scene in question- not so that it is more palatable but so that it doesn’t distract from the story and the argument being made. I really feel frustrated with directors whose technique gets in the way- when it becomes so obvious what is being done it can cause me to no longer be hooked. The willing suspension of disbelief ceases for just a moment and it’s really a shame.
I had hoped Dutcher improved as a director since Brigham City, and from the sound of it he has. It just seems he hasn’t enough to really step up to where he wants to be. The violence in the film will obviously alienate a mormon audience, which Dutcher doesn’t seem to think is a problem since he’s not setting out to play to a niche market, he’s trying to tell stories that are universal. Ironically it seems the very thing causing him to lose favor with a Mormon audience is what gets in the way of the story the most. (although the overall message of the film might lose favor with a Mormon audience as well, it isn’t the nail in the coffin that over the top violence would be.)

A post at BCC a while ago talked about being brutalized by art. Sometimes I think that it is an important aspect of art. But if the brutalization becomes unbelievable or comical then it loses its effect.

Hopefully Dutcher can edit the movie down just a bit. Failure to do so is so often what keeps good directors from being great directors. It makes potentially great films lose their punch, and it also turns mediocre possibly enjoyable action flicks into Waterworld.
Rory Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Matt,

Thanks for posting this. I’m still struggling to come to terms with this movie, but my two biggest issues are completely separate from yours. The final fight scene was incredible and difficult to watch, but while I can see your point that it doesn’t fit with the moral statement earlier in the movie, I felt like the character was living the “marrow” advice – the possibility of him putting it on the screen or taking the high road disappeared with his step into darkness as he filmed the gang attack, and instead set his course on an inevitable living of it in his own life.

My problems were:

1) I had trouble connecting with the main character – or any character, for that matter, aside from Davey. Hers was the only journey I felt deeply, and I did feel the violence perpetrated against her in a very visceral sense. I felt her fall more than his. I felt her conflict, her sacrifices, her struggles. But aside from her, I didn’t care about anyone else. It simply didn’t matter. (This may be overstating it, as there were points in the movie that I began to feel Dutcher’s character, but overall I was fairly detached)

2) The mormon content felt forced, and the final scene following the fight was far too long. Whether I was focused on the soccer ball (Wilson, anyone?), or wondering where the police were, or wondering just how long this was going to last, he lost me. I would have preferred a simple statement of seeking redemption. As it is, I felt more manipulated than inspired.

Finally, with respect to the final fight scene, I will offer this praise: I like violent movies, but I like the stylized violence, the fun violence. Dutcher, with his deliberate, extended scene, and with no score or “celebration” of this fight, brought home a very shocking and real sense of violence. I was invested in this fight in a way that I didn’t like. It exposed elements of myself that I am not proud of.

So, I’m not sure if I will see this one again. But the fact that this movie forced me to really – and I mean REALLY – think about some of these issues, I am glad I saw it at least once.
MCQ Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 8:59 PM
“Though she strips naked, Dutcher stops just short of showing any actual nudity”

Um, really? ‘Cause I must have a great imagination then.

“Nobody discusses crap”

Don’t get out much, do you? Ever been to Kulturblog? Crap is like fine wine there.

“I had trouble connecting with the main character – or any character, for that matter, aside from Davey. Hers was the only journey I felt deeply”

I disagree. The actress that played Davey (Virginia Reece, I think) was fabulous, but you didn’t actually see her falling. It was presented as a fait acompli when she tells Eric about the abortion and the affair. Eric is the only character that you see making the choices and agonizing over them (aside from the stripping scene, which I agree was extremely well shot and acted (and there was nudity btw, just not frontal)).

I totally agree with your second point Rory, and I think this is far more important than the violence. The end of the movie just dragged. I liked the way it finally ended but it took forever to get there: The Christus and the kid and the soccer ball and the stumbling along and the bleeding and the Christus again and the kid is now in the tree and …holy mother of pearl, just get to the freakin’ point already!
Kerry Shirts Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 9:04 PM
I think, quite frankly, that Rory did an excellent job in his talk. I have found that over the last decade or so my changing approach to scriptures have been very bolstered, and helped by my study of the Kabbalah, which teaches the PADRES system of understanding scripture, that is in four different levels of meaning. The more I study the Zohar, Sefer Yetzirah, and Bahir, the greater my appreciation is for the scriptures, and interestingly enough, the more fun it is to see where and what parts of the scriptures are taken literally, both by the LDS, as well as the Jewish folk.
Kerry Shirts Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 9:07 PM
fontor:
No, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not enough for it to be useful or good moral instruction. It has to be true. If it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not true, then how moral is it to misrepresent a human book as divine?

Kerry notes:
I can accept this, but with this exception. The parables of Jesus are not literally *true* as such, i.e., there may not have been literally a prodigal son, but that does not mean the *truth* is not contained in the parable. The same with other parables. Truth does not reside only in history or historical fact in order to be true. I get this from Borg and Crossan’s new book The Last Week of Jesus, quite a good read actualy.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 13th, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Rory, I’ve heard other people say they were unable to relate and connect to any of the characters. For whatever reason, I was able to connect and feel empathy for both Eric and Davey Boyle.

Agree with your second issue, not the Mormon content per se, but the extended stumbling-down-the-street scene. The scene would be stronger if: 1.) it took place in an abandoned alley or park, and 2.) was a little more subtle about the point it was trying to make.

MCQ, you must have a good imagination because I don’t know what nudity you are refering to. I think there was a quick shot of maybe the side of her butt, but I’ve seen worse on network television.

As for discussing crap, I think you know what I’m trying to say, but I can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or difficult. People do not typically discuss Big Momma’s House 2, or The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, or Wild Hogs, but movies like Falling, or other religious-themed films like the aforementioned Breaking the Waves, or Frailty, or Saved, or The Rapture, or The Apostle or the doc Jesus Camp do inspire conversation.

And, yes, I quite enjoy discussing crap at Kulturblog.
fontor Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Hi, Kerry.

I can see how parables might teach us something interesting about life or the human condition. I don’t really see the value of applying this to scripture in general. Would you say that the story of Jesus’ resurrection contains *truth* in some way even if it didn’t really happen? What truth might that be?
Matt W. Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 8:05 AM
As a mainstream mormon, I know the movie has the F-word in it, and the F-word is directed at God, so I won’t see it. The gratuitous violence, the nudity, or any other message that may be in the film will never make it out of the box, I would guess, for 90% of the mainstream of mormonism based on the above alone.

On the other hand, I don’t go to the movie to receive messages. That’s why I haven’t seen “Pursuit of Happyness” yet either.
Stephen Carter Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 9:09 AM
The relationshiip I was really invested in was the one between Eric and Davey.

The way I saw the plot shaping up was that these two really hurt themselves and each other, but then they start making some progress toward reconciliation (though I couldn’t see that reconciliation happening completely within the time of the film). That would have been quite a story, and we had a gut-punch second act with Eric’s near strangulation of her. Man, they both did some awful things to each other. But they still loved each other, otherwise why would they have cared so much about what the other had done?

And then for it to just end.

I think I know why Richard decided to do it that way. He was trying to tear any semblance of stability or possibility of happiness away from Eric so that the only relationship he could have was with God. And it did work. Eric was at rock bottom. I could certainly feel that.

Maybe it uncovered one of my own gut beliefs: that we find God through our relationships with others, rather than relating directly to God.

In a way it reminded me of what a reviewer wrote about Speilberg’s War of the Worlds. Something about how thousands of people had to die so Tom Cruise could grow up. It felt like a sadistic serial killer was choosing the most sickening and destructive way to get Eric on his knees in front of God.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Stephen, your take sounds a little bit like a twist on the story of Job, which is a horrifying storying in and of itself. (The difference is that Job loses everything, but he never loses his faith in God.)

I think Dutcher one-ups the Job story though, because the final message, to me, is that there is no God. Job loses everything, but at least he still had God. Eric Boyle loses everything, and God is not there to save him from the depths of his despair.
Stephen Carter Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:42 AM
I can totally see how you came to that interpretation, Matt. And if we stick strictly with a formalist approach to the film, I’d tend to agree with you. However, Richard did say in the post screening session that the movie has been rejected from film festivals for being too religious. But Richard didn’t say, “That really confused me, because this isn’t a religious movie.” Rather, it seems like I remember him bemoaning that religious films get so little respect these days.

That reaction leads me to believe that Richard intended Falling as a religious film. But your reaction (especially if it’s shared by many others) may cause Richard to do a little re-editing to make his intention a little more gettable.

This is actually the reason I saw Falling as being the first part of a trilogy. The ending is so ambiguous (to me) that I think there must surely be more to explore.
Mark L. Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 10:44 AM
matt t., enjoyed your comments, although I believe your gratuitous and unnecessary comment may not fit. having served in law enforcement in l.a. for a good number of years, mr. dutcher could have not been more dead on with the flow of a street fight – and length . however, to side with your comment, most people don’t recognize real violence. it is painful to watch, and yes, becomes comical when it gets to a certain point. I believe that is why you felt it was more about the fight and not the story. i actually saw it differently. i guess that is the beauty of film interpretation.

my favorite scene had to have been davey’s audition scene. mr. dutcher could have easily given into the gratuitous nudity, but chose to show the horror of the situation for her. much more powerful by showing much less.

so matt w., i acutally, in a twisted way, felt the “f-word” was done in proper context and was very necessary. we read throughout the scripture of those who curse God. though it made me feel very uncomfortable to hear and see it, the entire film itself gives a justification of why he curses God.
Kerry Shirts Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 12:02 PM
No, I was accepting the parables only at this point. I think Lou Midgley of FARMS (Neal A. Maxwell Institute) said it best in his essay “To Remember and Keep”: On the Book of Mormon as an Ancient Book,” in the Richard Lloyd Anderson Festschrift, where he noted the serious importance for Jews to understand their meaning as a people as actual history, i.e., what happened to them and how they reacted, and he notes the same importance for taking the Book of Mormon seriously as history. I am over simplifying, but this is one of Midgley’s very best essays, in my opinion. I shall read it again and probably make a podcast of it for my Backyard Professor podcast series.
MCQ Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Yeah, Matt T, I was just trying to be funny, I do understand what you are saying about crap. I swear though, that the film showed more than the side of her butt. Now I’ll have to see it again to see if I’m imagining that. Either way, though, your point is valid: Dutcher showed restraint in that scene that he seemed to feel was unnecessary in the rest of the movie.

The movie can be “religious” even if the message is that God doesn’t exist. I don’t think that is the message of this movie, I’m just saying that if it were, the movie would still be accurately described as “religious.” As I’ve said elsewhere, I think the problem that the festivals have with it is the repeated image of the Christus. Take that out and the religious message becomes much less overt, and the festivals would probably love it.

I think the Job comparison is interesting, but remember that Job was not complicit in what happened to him, whereas Eric is. Job is this righteous man who is the victim of what can only be described as “an act of God.” Eric would probably be the first to admit that he himself is responsible for at least a portion of his fate. Whether that makes it harder or easier to bear may be part of what this film is getting at.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Mark L. (#9), you misunderstood what I meant by “gratuitous and unnecessary.” I agree with you that the scene reflects the reality of a street fight. I never said it was unrealistic; in fact, just the opposite. In a Thunderdome/two-men-enter-one-man-leaves scenario, it would take a long time to kill a man with your bare hands, and you’d probably look like Boyle did at the end of it, covered in blood from head to toe.

My point was that it takes away from the narrative structure. You could say the same thing if they showed Davey and Eric having sex for in real time, unedited for 10 minutes, or Eric driving in the car to work for 25 minutes, or Davey taking a nap for 2 hours. Editing these slices of life together is what gives a story structure and narrative thrust. My feeling is that the fight scene distracts from the structure and narrative thrust.

MCQ (#10), agree with your comments about a religious movie being anything that contemplates the existence of God. Job is probably a bad comparison. Can you think of another character from the scriptures who would be a good comparison? The Prodigal Son, maybe? Eric Boyle is the Prodigal Mormon who gives up his inheritance for Babylon, but when he returns, his “father” is not there to welcome him home.
a random John Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 8:00 PM
I find this post very difficult to read because the typeface changes constanly.
Rob O. Says:
August 14th, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Thanks for the review Matt. I have read several reviews, and it seems the over the top violence is what is taken away from this film. I understand the first scene also has a lot of the f-word in it. Even with your excellent review of this movie being problematic, I will definitely have to view this movie. I am what I consider a mainstream Mormon, but definitely not a Utah mormon(if that makes any sense at all). Agreeably though, this movie will have to find a mainstream audience to be successful. Although, Matt, why would Sunstone be the “home court” audience, when the plot does not seem to be at all doctrinal and/or intellectual? Kind of a rhetorical question because I understand your point, just curious if a “frame of mind” attitude could alter viewpoints. Anyway, I am more interested in this film because of Dutcher. I’ve heard he has had this movie in mind for several years now, even before his leaving the church. He has been saying for a while now how he would be very interested in making a R-rated movie. I’m curious if he was over the top in the violence as a result of leaving the church. Like the drug dealer sending a message to potential rivals that he is for real. The one thing that was left out in this was whether or not the partially nude or not so nude at all was worth seeing in the first place?
MCQ Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 12:25 AM
arj: I’m not seeing the typeface issue. Is it just on your end?

Matt T: But he doesn’t return. It’s the prodigal son from hell, and I can’t think of a scriptural parallel. It seems like Dutcher is exploring the idea (kind of ironically when you consider his personal story) that each step down the road to Babylon may be untraceable. The scene where Eric finds himself regretting the fact that he doesn’t pray anymore and he’s “not supposed to be like this” is already too late. Davey is already having an affair. She’s already pregnant (perhaps with another man’s baby) she’s already planning to have the abortion. She sold her soul for stardom and, at least at this point, has no regrets. Eric is full of regret but has no way back, especially once he finds out how far Davey has gone. The chain of events set in motion by his videotape is already out of control and converging on him like a runaway beer truck. You don’t see stories like this in the scriptures (or in many movies or TV for that matter). There’s always redemption: Job gets re-blessed. Jonah gets spit out by the whale. Saul becomes Paul. Alma the younger sees the angel. The prodigal son comes home. Joseph is reunited with his brothers. Heck, “Behind the Music” has more optimism than this movie, and it’s about real life! Everyone on that show gets off heroine and makes a breakthrough album.

One of the questions in the discussion panel after the movie hit on this issue, and Dutcher dodged the question, which was sad. The question was something like: t what extent is the movie saying that we are not in control of the events that take us down the path to destruction? Eric made some bad choices maybe, and he has to take responsibility for them, but he didn’t choose to end up in the place he finds himself at the end of this movie. That’s why his “F you” to God rings true, to some extent. It’s not fair. He didn’t deserve it.
Booji Boy Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 9:26 AM
Please, people. Have you ever heard of spoiler warnings? For the sake of us who intend to someday see “Falling,” PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE warn us when key plot points are about to be revealed during your discussions. All it takes is two little words (SPOILER ALERT!). It’s just simple courtesy. Thanks.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 15th, 2007 at 9:53 AM
arJ (#12), typeface changes? I don’t see it either. What kind of browser are you using? I made a few html edits to the post, don’t know if that made it any better.

Rob O (#13), I call Sunstoners a “home crowd” because Richard is/was something of a Sunstone Mormon himself, and most attendees are more liberal or open-minded about unorthodox religious/spiritual points of view and boundary-pushing art.

I do not think the level of violence has anything to do with Richard’s relationship to the Church (i.e. “a result of leaving the church”), but everything to do with his artistic vision. The ultimate message of Falling certainly has something to do with his faith journey. It seems that Richard’s orthodox views, his transition-period views, and his post-Mormon views all influence the overall message.

MCQ (#14), all good points. Seems we can’t force a scriptural parallel onto Falling, though parts of certain stories certainly apply.

The question of how much “control” we have over our lives and whether we “deserve” the various positive and negative outcomes is indeed fascinating.

Booji Boy (#15), I have added a “SPOILER ALERT” in my post. Some of the comments go into more detail than the post, though. I don’t have time to edit all of them with spoiler warnings. You are right, of course.
Mark L. Says:
August 16th, 2007 at 8:43 AM
MCQ – only the side of her butt is shown from a distance. the scene was filmed/cut/edited so well that i felt i should look away. not for the nudity itself, but as though i was the sleazy director/producer looking for that.

it appears mr. dutcher’s goal is to get this out to a festival. however, i can’t imagine him attempting to release it to a broader market until after the release of evil angel. he’d find more buzz and interest for falling if evil angel were a big hit. hell, he’s waited 3 yrs to screen it privately, whats another few months. by the way, anyone know when evil angel is coming out?
Rick Jepson Says:
September 1st, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Fontor,

I wanted to pick this back up–if its interesting to anyone–in light of the new revelation that M. Theresa was plagued by doubt for nearly her entire minstry.

You’ve stated earlier in this thread that “clinging” isn’t noble. But after reading Theresa’s shockingly candid letters–those that she wrote to Christ, I have to disagree with you. She continued to cling to her faith while feeling totally abandoned by Christ. She still woke up at 4 am to minster to the poorest of the poor. She still prayed. She still promoted faith.

I have to tell you that she’s become my patron saint—the patron saint of faithful skeptics, I suppose. She stuck it out and wrestled with her faith rather than discarding it. Even when she felt totally abandoned by the God she worshipped. I can’t say that my own spiritual journay has been as bleak as her “dark night”. Mine is more like crossing a desert but encountering refreshing oases every few hundred miles.

Theresa’s conclusion was that even Christ felt totally abandoned on the cross and therefore that her own anguish brought her closer to him.

Given that, I have to ask: wasn’t M. Theresa noble?
Rick Jepson Says:
September 1st, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Let me add to that my own definition of faith–the one i apply to my life. It isn’t a certailnty of anything, not that the B.o.M. is true or that the first vision happened or that there is an afterlife.

To me faith just means that I don’t pretend to have read enough or thought enough or seen enough to judge any of those important questions. I continue to scrutinize–to wrestle–with every bit of it and in the meantime I allow some of my instinctive hope to guide me. I do hope that there is an afterlife and I do hope that I’ll always be with my family. I do hope that the God Joseph Smith hinted at (one who exists within the universe rather than without; one who persuades rather than commands, etc) exists and not the scary God of other traditions. I do hope a lot of things. And I’ll continue scrutinizing and tearing down those hopes throughout my life.

All good science, like it or not, begins with a hunch–with a flash of insight–that we call a hypothesis. The true scientist immediately tries to prove the hunch wrong rather than trying to prove it true. And in this sense, I consider my spiritual journey to be one of true, real science. I have my hunches. Instead of leaning on them or being confident about them, I now must spend my life attacking them and seeing what they will stand up against and what will make them crumble.

I also have zero tolerance for those who give up before me. If you’re certain that its all true or certain that its all false, you sure as hell better have spent a lot more time reading, discussing, and thinking than I have before you got there.

You’ve made the statement that “events in scripture are not supported by findings from biology, archaeology, linguistics, physics, and on and on.” Which is about as run-of-the-mill as this kind of statement gets. And I have to tell you that I wonder about it. I know that you are proficient in linguistics, but to what extent have you studied this particular matter? Which “events” specifically have you dedicated years to? It seems like any one would take years–maybe a lifetime–to completely investigate. And what degrees in biology, archeology, and physics do you hold that make you so confident?

Again….I pose the same criticism to the guy sitting next to me in Elder’s Quorum, so please don’t misunderstand my scrutiny. All I mean is that I will continue to attack my beliefs in Mormonism throughout my life because that is how I personally define faith. And I will be surprised if I ever have the certainty that you both express. Meanwhile, you both get to look down at me as some kind of fool. Him because my testimony is “weak” and you because I’m foolishly “clinging.”

BTW. Just re-read and again can’t tell if I feel hostile. Passionate certainly, but no hostility intended.
Rick Jepson Says:
September 1st, 2007 at 11:06 AM
P.S. Damn I’m long winded.

I just checked out your site and found the predictable response to M. Theresa: if only she had realized that her whole struggle was unnecessary since her faith was obviously groundless and “other good explanations are so easy to come by?”

Again, I just don’t see the easy road that you’re referring to.

What I do see is that you constantly paint a picture of a theology thats simplistic and nothing even remotely close to what I accept as an (agnostic) Mormon. Nothing close. And then when you easily topple that straw man you seem to pat yourself on the back for it.

And I suppose that is an easy road.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 AM
Rick.

Nice to know you are still out there in #40, 41 & 42! You’ve put out some good challenges, along with: “I continue to scrutinize?¢Ç¨Äúto wrestle?¢Ç¨Äúwith every bit of it and in the meantime I allow some of my instinctive hope to guide me. “ I sent you a lot of stuff months ago, which I know you haven’t forgotten. Is this a good place to contine our wrestling match? We agreed to do it here, rather than by email, yes? I have a hunch that there’s a new name awaiting for you! Call it a “hunch”.

I have something specific to add in response to your #41 statement: “All good science, like it or not, begins with a hunch?¢Ç¨Äúwith a flash of insight?¢Ç¨Äúthat we call a hypothesis. The true scientist immediately tries to prove the hunch wrong rather than trying to prove it true.”

But I’ll wait until you respond to this much.

Namaste,

Eugene
Michael Says:
September 2nd, 2007 at 1:49 PM
Dear John,

I know you are excited about your new opportunity and challenge to revitalize Sunstone and to make it relevant to Latter-Day Saint culture. I support you in this challenge. I would like to make a suggestion. When an organization finds it influence waning, it is sometimes a good idea to make your resources, opinions and articles available for free online. This would allow your voice to be heard and to reach new converts. Then, once you find your influence growing, you can seek more funding through charging.

I would suggest you give consideration to making the magazine and conference MP3s free on-line including all the back issues. I know it goes against what Sunstone has been doing for the past decades but it has worked with many other organizations that find themselves in the same predicament. You will find yourself grateful that you did.
Rick Jepson Says:
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 PM
Hello Brother. I’d love to pick it back up. I’ll be back in town in a couple of days and will get right to it.

I don’t know what to make of everything on this thread. I end up taking more of a stand than I mean to on online forums for some reason and I end up overstating my position. I think that’s happened a bit here.

I think especially as i sort things out in my own little brain.

Well….good night. Let’s talk soon.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 2nd, 2007 at 8:58 PM
I’ll look forward to your most rigorous challenge, my friend. For openers, here is something to chew on when you get back.

You say: “The true scientist immediately tries to prove the hunch wrong rather than trying to prove it true.”

I’m not sure I’d qualify as a “true scientist” in your book, but I want to tell you the story of when I fell in love with scientific research. I did not try to disprove my hunch. Rather, I wanted to verify it. And I had to do it in a language other scientists would understand.

It was fall quarter 1960. I had come to the U of Utah from Berkeley on a three-year NDEA Title IV Fellowship, which had a drop dead termination date. Since I was married with growing family of three little ones, there was no time to lose. Graduate studies had to be completed within that period or I risked never finishing. So, as a strategy to accelerate my program, I decided to eliminate the time students typically took in deciding on a thesis subject, which I understood was a year or two. I had learned that my research director, Ivan B. Cutler, was famous for conceiving practical dissertation subjects, so I asked him to consider the three projects in priority order that were closest to his heart, but which he could not get funded by corporate or other means. (The NDEA fellowship included a generous stipend for research without strings. Thus, I could choose whatever I wanted to do.) Without revealing what I was up to, I had decided to run with the director’s first priority suggestion, whatever it was, which also allowed me to test my own flexibility. His favorite topic back then turned out to be a question for determining the conceptual boundary between the disciplines of physics and chemistry. A most elegant idea!

I fell madly in love with research trying to duplicate and then extend a previous grad student’s research during those beginning fall weeks. In the process had an intuitive flash about the molecular mechanism of the suggested chemical reaction and its physical structure. I simply knew early on what it was. I won?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t bore you with details [you can look them up in the U of Utah library under my name] but it took all of those three years to learn the mathematics, build new equipment and take precise data to verify my intuitive flash. The final critical data were taken in the last two weeks of the fellowship term and the equipment broke down after the last runs. I had run out of time, money and energy and didn’t yet know how my experimental data compared to the theoretical model. There was no time left to do anything more, even if more data were required. But what a wonderful surprise it was to watch how the data fit the theory. They fit so precisely and with a reproducibility that was within 1%, which was unprecedented precision for chemical kinetics where 10% reproducibility was considered good. No one could now argue with my conclusion, whereas before that plot, I had not been able to defend it at all. It had been white knuckle excitement all the way!
Rick Jepson Says:
September 4th, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I agree that when observations fit the hunch its probably one of the most thrilling experiences in life. But the fact that you collected data and demanded reproducibility tells me that you were scrutinizing your hunch and being skeptical of it.

To me that still seems like you were testing yourself and testing your insights….not really just spending three years telling yourself how right you were. Would you disagree?

I think that what we call “faith” can often be related to this. We allow ourselves to pursue those flashes of insight and find out if they can weather our storm (or, if you like, if they are reproducible).

Mormonism seems to say this to me, it seems to be the most reproducible of religions. Joseph Smith says, “I saw Christ and so can you.” It wont be easy, it will take time, you have to follow the manual, but if you reproduce the same steps, you’ll get the same results.

But what’s disheartening to me is that I don’t hear Mormons talk much about all that great stuff. It seems pretty much that we’ve crouched into a corner of conformity with other, more stale traditions.
It makes a conversation like I’ve tried to muster on this thread particularly difficult because frequently the mormonism that someone confidently “debunks” has nothing whatsoever to do with the mormonism that I know.

Anyway, I used to shy away from my instincts, my flashes of insight, because they seemed irrational or unscientific. Now I’m learning to honor them–and to some extent to trust them, but only in the same way you trusted your instinct for those three years. If you ended up proving yourself wrong, I’m certain that you wouldn’t have falsified your data…right? Of course not. You would have said that your insight was wrong.

In very much the same way, I’m continuing to collect my data and decide if my hunches are worthwhile or not. And in the meantime, I don’t mind giving them their due. But the goal is to someday know one way or another. I suppose that doesn’t mean that I only tear them down or only scrutinize them…I also support them, as you did. But ultimately they have to fit the data or I have to toss them (or I have to sacrifice my integrity and accept them anyway).

What puzzles me is that I encounter so many who are sure about their conclusions a lot faster than I am. Maybe the’ve really worked that much harder. But usually I find that they haven’t. What if, during your three years of intense work, some collegue or professor casually told you that you were wrong (or even that you were right) and that you were a fool to keep clinging to all that pesky work–that there was no honor in clinging to it.

That would be as unacceptable to me in scientific inquiry as it is in my spiritual inquiry.

I hope thats something at least fractionally closer to what I tried to express above.

Adios.
Rick Jepson Says:
September 4th, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Hey, PS. this may be worth another thread. But I’m positively amazed at how accurate those hunches–those flashes of insight–can be. And how, when you’re really working on a project, sometimes pieces seem just to fall from the sky. Realy bizarre.

I”ve found time and again that when i’m in the depths of an inquiry, I happen upon all kinds of important data. Amazing stuff. Is it because I have an increased awareness? Is it a personal God sprinkling me with gifts for all my labor? Or is there some kind of universal law or force that creates some kind of positive feedback loop for information….when you seek it you find it.

I don’t know. But I’ve had a few experiences in the library or at the bedside that were stunning and really spiritually moving–although, of course, they had nothing to do with the traditional notion of ’spirituality”

I’d like to start a science thread. Let’s do that in the next day or so. I’d be interested to compare LDS prophets with their scientific contemporaries. Who have I been most inspired by and most affected by: Joseph Smith or Charles Darwin? Whom do I feel closer to? Whom do I most see myself in?

How about you?

–Rick
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 3:16 AM
OK, Rick, we’ve highjacked this poor thread enough, yes?

A “scientists versus prophets” thread? I’d start with Edwin Hubble, not Darwin. And then quickly move to Wilber. I’m not so sure there’s much value in focusing on LDS prophets, however. Joseph Smith, yes. Maybe Brigham, too, including Orson Pratt. I’m not terribly impressed by all the rest, unless you want to include the RLDS guys. I’m really impressed by McMurray, the one who recently resigned from his post as president (I don’t think he resigned as prophet, did he?) and who spoke at the symposium banquet. He set an unprecidented example of courage that his LDS contemporaries might emulate!. I’m also inspired by COC’s (RLDS) Susan Skoor, their newest apostle.

The problem for me, in so far as contemporary scientists and LDS prophets are concerned, is that they are too often BORING! But if you want to open the discussion to include those who have been the most inspiring to you, be they scientists or prophets, then that might be more meaningful. In my view, however, real prophets are more likely to be artists: composers, poets, painters, etc..NOT somepme with a better rational argument.

BTW, did you manage to crawl through all that stuff I sent to you months ago?
Rick Jepson Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 8:07 AM
Not all of it…but working on it again.

I think this would be a fun thread. I’m going to try to start it up in the next day or two.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 12:32 PM
Good! Let me know what you think of the JS/EB attachment discoveries, as well as the spook stuff. I don’t remember what else I sent, but those two subjects are no joke!

I’m looking forward to your next thread! We will make it friendly contest rather than combat, yes? Wouldn’t you say that was the attitude attending ancient Jacob’s legendary night-time wrestling match?
admin Says:
September 5th, 2007 at 8:47 PM
Michael,

Request granted (w/ the pre-2005 MP3s at least).

Back Magazine issues coming soon!!!!
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 5:13 AM
Rick, I’m impatiently waiting for your new thread, since it appears we may have killed this one. But before moving on, I want to say one last thing about “Approaching Scripture”. Scriptures, of whatever stripe and cultural origin are artifacts. They are works of art. They may or may not be great art, and I cite the Bible and the Bagavad Gita as examples of great art, but they evoke responses in the beholder of the artifact. Those responses are unique to the beholder, like many people in a museum of art viewing a great painting. Each person has his/her own unique reaction to the painting and no one has the right to invalidate those unique reactions or responses. They are all “true” to each beholder.
Rick Jepson Says:
September 13th, 2007 at 11:11 AM
In a very real way, I think each person is his/her own scripture and will get what they want to get out of any book.

Sorry I’m behind again….wish I could be optimistic, but it’s a hariy week.

Cheers.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 21st, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Well, Rick. It’s now more than a week since you posted your response remark to mine and nothing–not one other thing of any kind in any other thread–has been posted on all of SunstoneBlog during that time. Has this happened before? If not, why do you think it is happening now? Could it be that we, you and I, have killed this thread, if not the blog? What an awful thought! How inflated! How self-serving! All of which I sincerely hope is not true.

But perhaps (perish the thought!) we are experiencing a little cultural cowardice out there in internet land? This is what I am thinking now. Which reminds me. I remember long ago (early 1960s), when functioning as an elders quorum instructor at one of the U of Utah student wards, having posted the following message on the blackboard before the meeting started so that it could be read as the brothers walked into the room: “Brothers! Are we cowards in our faith?”

That launched a lively and amazing discussion. Out of it evolved a small separate discussion group which included Gene England, Rex Mitchell, Lou Olivier, Grand Weed and myself. I like to think that it was this experience that Gene took with him to Stanford a year later as a feasibility project out of which Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought was born.
Rick Jepson Says:
September 29th, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Eugene,

I just stopped by today and thought the same thing: what happened this week?

Just as importantly, I am sorry that I am taking forever to pick back up our discussion. I am hopelessly like this….but I always finally do pick right back up where I left off. If you’re still interested by then (and I hope it’s soon), I look forward to continuing our discussion.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
September 29th, 2007 at 7:56 PM
Yes, Rick, I’m still interested in picking up where we left off. I can’t yet accept that you are “hopelessly like this…” But, I’m not sure how we should proceed. You also said you were considering a new blog subject regarding a new or different look at science. We had earlier agreed to consider in this space some heavy stuff I’d sent to you via email a few months ago. So, it’s your call for now about how to go about this. What of the stuff I sent to you disturbed you the most? Can a scientific examination of it be of any value?

ENK
Ted Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 10:25 PM
Sorry Nick and company, but I bet this is a very practical consideration and has nothing to do with PR or image. Being extremely overweight affects general health, ability to walk in rough terrain, ability to bike all day, and in some cases your ability to get an airline ticket. There are many people who are worthy to serve who can’t do so for other reasons related to their ability to serve effectively under stressful physical conditions. This is just one of those IMO.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
October 22nd, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Rory,

Back to the original purpose of this thread: Approaching Scripture.

Yesterday morning I attended the tiny local Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) parish here in Los Alamos to sing with them in their regular Sunday morning litergy service. I so love to sing this wonderful music and especially to sing spontaneously a chapter from the Biblical scriptures when asked (as I was yesterday). It is marvelous tradition.

Anyway, generally, in the ROC Sunday litergy, there is a window of time alotted to the priest to speak extemporaneously as he is moved by the Spirit. How I wish I’d had my pocket recorder yesterday! Priest Fr. John began by recounting an event in the life of Jesus (I don’t even remember the specific verses now) to demonstrate His lack of fear: He needed no protection, no fortresses. The priest then moved into a message specifically designed for those present and I was moved to tears for the remaider of his mini-sermon. He spoke of vulneability and how Jesus set the example of the vulerability required to commune with the Spirit of His (our) Father. The priest then spoke of poets and painters and artists of all kinds, who open themselves to be vulnerable in their search for the divine connection and who then struggle to express their experience through art. From there Fr. John spoke of all the saints, whose icons lined the parish walls, that they are revered (not worshipped!) by the ROC tradition for having lived lives of vulnerablilty, which continues to be manifest in their works and legacies.

Suddenly I understood!

And my long-term discomfort with such artifacts vanished. As Priest John closed his remarks and turned to leave the lecturn place, I was moved to exclaim “Amen!. The truth has been spoken!”. With a surprised smile (this is not done in such meetings!) Fr. John turned, bowed and with obvious joy quietly said, “Thank you”.

It was one of those special, spiritually nurishing moments, and I left the parish grounds wanting to share it with my Sunstone family. I will now cut and paste this recollection into my personal blog..

Namaste, Rory.

Eugene
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 5:16 PM
Jana, why in the world would you ever feel embarrassed by those wonderful big, hot tears? Could they be simultaneously tears of joy for the legitimacy and meaning of the ancient and liberalized celebration you were witnessing, as well as tears of lamentation for the less-than-legitimate modern and conservative desert that you find so difficult to accept?
Jana Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 5:35 PM
I probably shouldn’t have felt so embarrassed about my tears, but I just felt so surprised by them and they were a bit out of place in the moment. Later in the ceremony after Rose read successfully from the Torah and gave her interpretation of the passage, her parents acknowledged that she was now an adult and that was the place where tears were flowing for many people. But I didn’t notice anyone else being so moved by the prayer shawl part–but I was the only Mormon in attendance (besides my spouse and kids) so I doubt anyone else felt the same contrast with their own religious experience.
The Bish Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 10:40 PM
Jana, please don’t take this the wrong way–and I am not seeking to minimise or marginalise your feelings, which are obviously deep and very tender–but baptism is not a “coming-of-age ritual.” Baptism is an ordinance of the gospel, commanded by the Father and administered as He directs, for His own eternal purposes and for our sakes. The gospel and its ordinances, and the priesthood that administers them, does not belong to President Hinckley, the Twelve, your bishop, or anyone else in its so-called hierarchy . It is without father or mother, without beginning of days or end of years. It has very specific purpose, administered in a very specific manner, according to the laws revealed by God.

It seems that problems with the “male” priesthood and its administration arise when people equate authority and power, and speak of “power in the priesthood” as if it were some magical facility bestowed on the holder and that is withheld from all others. Authority has never carried power, unless through abuse of the authority and then only to the abuser’s condemnation. Authority refers simply to organisation.

The decision regarding who is given authority must be clear (or we would have rival claims), and it must be arbitrary (or else it would lead to pride). That is why only some are called to have authority. Yes, it is discrimination, but discrimination is important because it how the Lord organises His people. A short read of the scriptures will reveal the Lord discriminates constantly, but He loves each of us equally and is no respecter of persons.

If a priesthood holder treats non-priesthood holders, including women, as inferior, they automatically forfeit any power or influence in the priesthood. God, who “owns” the priesthood, withdraws it from the person and they are left unto themselves. They are actually worse off than if they had never received the priesthood.

“Power” comes from faith. Faith means exercising hope based on evidence. It is a rational thing, and the basis for all action. Without faith, nothing gets done. It does not matter what your church position is, or whether you hold the priesthood or not. Unless you have the power to act, and to inspire others to act, you are useless.

Imagine two people isolated on remote islands. One has a ‘higher’ priesthood position. The other has no priesthood, but far more faith. Who could achieve the most (i.e. has the most power) in their situation? The answer is the one with the most faith of course, because they will act to get the most done to correct their predicament.

People without authority have just as much power as people with authority, because they have just as much ability to exercise faith and to do good. But in order to work effectively, we need to be organised, and that is where authority comes in. A person with more faith will want to respect positions of authority. But the only power comes from faith and I have known a great many women with far more faith than the priesthood brethren around them that held the authority.

The Bish
Jana Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 11:43 PM
My only reply to your comment, my friend, is to say that it’s all too easy to accept LDS notions of power and privilege when one bears the title of “The Bish.”

Sigh.
JohnR Says:
January 5th, 2008 at 11:55 PM
Even though “The Bish” stated that it was not intention to be so, I found his comment to be utterly condescending and patronizing to Jana (who, by way of full disclosure, I should mention is my beloved partner).

1. Whatever baptism’s salvific effects, it is still a rite with social consequences. It is most definitely a rite of passage, and combined with the teaching that a child is generally baptized when they reach the age of accountability, it can be easily argued that it is a coming of age ritual. Perhaps what “The Bish” intends to say is that it is not *merely* or *primarily* a coming of age rite. Church leaders regularly highlight the social benefits of rites in addition to their importance to salvation.

2. The priesthood is effectively male. And power does equal authority in practice. Male leaders, while generally well-intentioned, have enormous power over the women they interview, call, admonish, etc. and regularly make decisions that affect the happiness of their followers.

3. “The Bish” said: Yes, it is discrimination, but discrimination is important because it how the Lord organises His people. A short read of the scriptures will reveal the Lord discriminates constantly, but He loves each of us equally and is no respecter of persons.

This is the sort of logic Christian slaveowners in the South used to defend and prolong the heinous institution (and that Church leaders used to perpetuate discrimination against blacks for decades).

4. “The Bish” also said: If a priesthood holder treats non-priesthood holders, including women, as inferior, they automatically forfeit any power or influence in the priesthood. God, who ?¢Ç¨?ìowns?¢Ç¨¬ù the priesthood, withdraws it from the person and they are left unto themselves. They are actually worse off than if they had never received the priesthood.

Maybe god says “Amen” to the authority of that man in the spirit, but in practice many abusive priesthood holders remain in office, doing incredible emotional harm to members of the flock. I’ve seen lives seriously damaged by bishops and stake presidents who were excommunicated years or even decades after their sins and abuses started. Their social authority and power remained even if the spiritual part was gone. Pretty words, “Bish,” that don’t seem to mesh with the real world.

At any rate, it is deeply satisfying to belong to a congregation where women and men are truly equal in every way, and where there is no need for Orwellian doublespeak about compassionate discrimination and power not equaling authority.
The Bish Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 2:48 AM
The Bish sighs back.

I have no idea what “LDS notions of power and privilege” really means in the context of being a disciple of Christ. That is all I am interested in being.

JohnR, baptism and the other ordinances of the gospel are not negotiable. We come to Christ on His terms, which are the terms of the Father. You may (speaking in the universal “you”), if you so desire, seek to alter those terms to suit your own agenda, but the Lord will not accept anything at our hands He has not authorised. This is the word of the Lord which we have placed ourselves under covenant to obey.

You are quite correct. My intention was that baptism is “not merely or primarily a coming of age rite.” Baptism certainly sits within a social context, but it is an ordinance of the gospel, the direct commandment of the Father to all His children and the primary message Christ delivered to the Nephites (cf 3 nephi 11). That I would need to defend this as a concept astonishes me.

Male leaders, while generally well-intentioned, have enormous power over the women they interview, call, admonish, etc. and regularly make decisions that affect the happiness of their followers.

I don’t live in Utah. I don’t live in the USA. I live probably as far from Utah as you can get without actually falling off the planet. Even here however we have male leaders that exercise unrighteous dominion and undue influence. I find that tragic, wherever it occurs. I was not trying to marginalise your wife’s concerns, her feelings, or apologise for the abuses that I know (probably better than most) can, have and do occur within the church.

I have sat as a bishop. I have never interviewed a married woman without her husband being present if he so desired. If I needed to interview privately, I always made sure that her husband knew and was seated nearby (usually outside my door). He was always invited into the interview as soon as whatever private portion was concluded. I always made it clear that the sister was not bound by any “rule” not to share the content of the interview her husband, in any case.

For single women, I always invited them to have a close friend present on similar terms (i.e. seated nearby and present once the private portion was complete, if the person so desired). I could find nothing in the CHI that would prevent me from doing this. I found it enormously beneficial for all concerned and hope that I was never guilty of wielding any “power” over a woman, regardless how well intentioned I may have thought I was being.

I also hope any decision I made that affected the happiness of any one “following” me (I am not their light, I only hold it up for them to see) would only be to increase it.

I’m sorry you thought my comments were “Orwellian doublespeak.” The world painted by Orwell was a close to hell as I can imagine. Such things should be as far from the Kingdom of God as possible.

The Bish
Elaine Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 12:08 PM
It was my unfortunate experience in the course of over 30 years’ membership in the Mormon church to find that the cold, heartless, and unfeeling treatment of individuals and their concerns were typically defended by citing issues of “proper authority”. Individuals in the church are often, in my experience, seen and treated as merely cogs in the wheel of “God’s plan”, not as human beings with tender feelings that can be injured by such treatment.

The exclusion of women from participation in ordinances involving their children is just one example of this. Despite the fact that I don’t have children of my own, I can fully understand your feelings of loss, Jana, at not being able to participate in such rites.
Jana Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Bish:

This is a bit of a tangent, but I’m quite curious about what you said above:

“I have sat as a bishop. I have never interviewed a married woman without her husband being present if he so desired. If I needed to interview privately, I always made sure that her husband knew and was seated nearby (usually outside my door). He was always invited into the interview as soon as whatever private portion was concluded. I always made it clear that the sister was not bound by any ?¢Ç¨?ìrule?¢Ç¨¬ù not to share the content of the interview her husband, in any case.”

My questions:
1) Have you ever interviewed a married man w/o informing his wife? If/when doing so, did you let her know that she could be present if she so desired?

2) When you interview married men do you have the wife sit outside and then enter the room when the private portion is included?

3) Do you affirm to men that they aren’t bound by any rule not to share the content of their interviews with their wives?

4) In cases where there may be an abusive husband in a marriage, do you still offer for the husband to be present when you interview the wife?

5) When interviewing women married to not-LDS men, do you still offer for the husbands to be present in the interview process if they desire it?
Elaine Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
I think I need to reword my statement above, Jana.

What I should have said is that while I don’t have children, I can fully understand why you would feel the loss of not being able to participate in ordinances involving your children. It goes without saying that a) because I am not you and b) because I am not a mother, I can’t fully understand how you feel about that issue or any other.
pmb Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 8:15 PM
I have experienced a similar feeling in another church service. I attended a Congregationalist church and was surprised to find myself crying to see both men and women involved at every level – young candle holders ( I don’t know what they’re called), deacons and deaconesses administering communion, a husband and wife participating in the baptism of their child. The best way I can describe the feeling was like a hole in my heart being filled with a healing balm.

Yes, we can look at the writings of Paul and read that women should not speak in church. We can read in writings of Brigham Young that blacks are the servants of satan. We can read terrible things in the Old Testament about all sorts of Gentiles. But that cannot be our frame of reference. Where human rights and religion collide, human rights must prevail.

Christianity seems to slowly be accepting people, group by group. The LDS church is accepting more people too, but very slowly (I think specifically of a greater acceptance of homosexuals during my lifetime). At some point in the future, this church may be at a point where I can feel comfortable being fully engaged.

There is too much uncertainty in the authenticity and origin of all of our sacred texts for us to base discriminatory policies upon them.
Villate Says:
January 6th, 2008 at 9:27 PM
My oldest child will be baptized this summer, and I have to say that it doesn’t bother me in the least that I will not be involved in the ordinance per se. I figure that I’m already deeply involved in the process of teaching her the principles of the gospel, and that I will be the one who determines in large part the program of the baptismal service, helps her to dress and get ready, etc. I don’t feel the need to be involved in every aspect of it. It didn’t bother me to put my infant children in their father’s arms and send them up to the front of the chapel to be blessed by my male relatives and friends either. It doesn’t upset me that women do not participate in the priesthood ordinances of the LDS Church. If other churches allow women to do so, that’s fine, but I don’t feel any envy or longing to do it myself. I look at it as different roles, not anything in particular to do with male/female stuff. In my experience, it’s been the women who do most of the work and therefore hold most of the power in practical Church matters. On the few occasions I’ve been challenged by “priesthood authority” (most of these by callow elders during my mission), I nearly always came out on top due to greater maturity, knowledge of the scriptures or Church policy, and a lack of desire to show off or exercise authority over others. Others, both women and men, have had a different experience in the LDS Church, and I acknowledge that, but I just wanted to bring up that not every woman feels pain at being excluded from certain rites or business of the Church. I’m not one of those who’s “relieved that I don’t hold the priesthood” – if I had it, I hope I would do my duty – but it doesn’t upset or offend me that I don’t.
The Bish Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 5:15 AM
1) Have you ever interviewed a married man w/o informing his wife? If/when doing so, did you let her know that she could be present if she so desired?

Wherever possible I would interview as couples. I always instructed my Exec Sec to inform the other partner of any interview request. Not everyone was that concerned to be present, but it was important the invitation was there.

2) When you interview married men do you have the wife sit outside and then enter the room when the private portion is included?

Yes, couples were invited in most cases, depending on the nature of the interview. For instance, if the interview was more of a “simple” PPI then I would see the priesthood holder separately, mainly for convenience sake, unless he wanted his wife present.

3) Do you affirm to men that they aren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t bound by any rule not to share the content of their interviews with their wives?

Absolutely. The content of the interview does not belong to me or the church. I am the Lord’s agent. The interview is between the Lord and the individual, as are their covenants.

4) In cases where there may be an abusive husband in a marriage, do you still offer for the husband to be present when you interview the wife?

If the abuse was known (thankfully very rare) or suspected then it was up to the wife. More than once the abusive partner was the wife, however… Wherever there was abuse the intent was to reconcile and correct the problem. As I said, thankfully this was very rare. I would hope it is rare where you are, but I get the feeling not.

5) When interviewing women married to not-LDS men, do you still offer for the husbands to be present in the interview process if they desire it?

I depended entirely on the individuals concerned whether or not they would attend. Most could not be bothered. However, the non-member husband was always made aware and the invitation extended. I always considered the wife’s feelings as well, as to whether she wanted him present. My instructions to Home Teachers were always that the non-member spouse (male or female) was to be as respected as the member and included in the visit if they desired. I found being inclusive in this manner softened hearts and removed barriers to understanding.

The Bish
JohnW Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 2:08 PM
In my experience, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s been the women who do most of the work and therefore hold most of the power in practical Church matters.

Really? As a non-Mormon, I’ve always wondered who decides how money from tithes gets budgeted and spent. Is it effectively the women of the Church? How about at the highest levels? It’s unclear to me how many women are members of the highest … committees?

OK, I just answered my own question via Wikipedia, which tells me that the Prophet is a man, all his counselors are men, all of the Twelve, all General Authorities…

So maybe I don’t get the poster’s point. I’m an outsider, of course, so hope that I can get some clarification. Perhaps the poster meant at the Ward and Stake levels? Is the Church is structured so that most of the power is at the Ward and Stake levels? And the General Authorities don’t have much power? But that can’t be right, can it?

Maybe the poster is using a nuanced version of the word “practical” that is over my head as a non-member. The original poster, as a woman, seemed to be saying that she wasn’t able to participate in certain ceremonies. Is the commenter saying that lack of influence over that practice isn’t a practical matter?

I really don’t understand Villate’s words.
Villate Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I think the use of the word “power” is the problem here, JohnW. “Power” in the Church is generally not wielded over other people, at least not when things are going as they should. “Power” to make decisions about what is taught as doctrine, about policies, etc., does reside with men, I suppose, but hopefully it is used under the inspiration of God rather than for personal aggrandizement or gratification. I realize that there are individuals who do abuse this “power” within the Church, but I hope and believe that they are a small minority and that they will be held to account for their actions, harmful though they may be.

About the use of the word “practical” – Most of what gets done, locally speaking, in the Church is done by women. They’re the ones who check on each other and each other’s families, do the work of the wards (taking meals to people, teaching lessons on Sundays, arranging activities and therefore the money that is spent on them, etc.), and encouraging their husbands, home teachers, local leaders, and so forth to do things or make changes on a local level. The Bishop generally chooses the leaders of the various quorums and auxiliaries, but if a woman is in a leadership position in an auxiliary, she chooses her own counselors in most cases and determines the direction the auxiliary will take, which I guess that is a form of power. Anyone, male or female, can decline a calling. Technically I suppose they are supposed to “report to” or “get permission from” their male leaders, but in my experience, the Bishop nearly always relies on the good judgment of the people involved and usually doesn’t even check up on them. On a macro level, the General Authorities are men, though most of the auxiliaries are led by women. I don’t know that these women are considered GAs, but they have a fair amount of “power” in deciding what will happen in the auxiliaries they lead on a Church-wide basis, again subject to “review” or whatever, but I suspect left quite a bit to themselves in practice. Many of the committees that create Sunday School and other curriculum, decide the disbursement of tithes, etc. are made up of men and women (probably not in equal numbers) and they are under the supervision of various members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Quorums of the Seventy, who are men. If this is power, then I guess the men hold a lot of it. Men are good at bureaucracy. Human nature being what it is, I’m not sure that women would do that much better a job were they the ones in “power”, to be honest.

On a personal level, women don’t hold any “power” over the membership status of other men or women. I suppose the Bishop and Stake President do, so I guess you could consider that a lack of power for women. However, individual Bishops and Stake Presidents do not randomly go around revoking membership or challenging folks on their worthiness to belong to or participate in the Church. If there is a disciplinary council of some sort, the men on the Stake High Council and/or ward level will make decisions, hopefully informed by the account of the individual involved and inspired by the Holy Ghost rather than their own seeking for “power” over others. I think it is extremely rare (though not impossible) that this is not the case. There are plenty of people who were excommunicated in the 1990s who believe that there was a vendetta against them. I don’t know whether this is true or not. Some Church authorities certainly didn’t like what these individuals were saying at the time and may have abused their “power” in these situations. However, I fail to see how having women on a disciplinary council involving either men or women would make the situation any less stressful and distressing or any more “egalitarian.”

At the heart of this matter, in my view, JohnW, is my belief that “men” didn’t set things up this way, God did when He organized the Church through Joseph Smith and anciently through Jesus Christ. There’s no evidence in the scriptures that Jesus ordained any women to the priesthood or even that women held prominent positions in the early Church, only that they did most of the work, as they do now, while men blathered on about doctrine and policy and argued amongst themselves about who was right or wrong. I don’t know why women don’t hold the priesthood and therefore don’t hold “power” in the Church. I have faith that God has a good reason for not bestowing the priesthood on women and that if He wanted them to have it, they would. Obviously, other people in the Church do not feel this way and believe that unconscious sexism or something more sinister is at work. I tend not to believe this. As usual, I have gone on too long. My only point in making the original post was to point out that not all women feel oppressed or hurt by the “inequality” of not having the priesthood. It’s a shame that some do and that those feelings cause them distress. I feel certain that the Lord will eventually explain Himself to them to their satisfaction. For me and for many other, though, it’s not an issue.
Elaine Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
Something occurred to me as I have been thinking about this issue and the discussion that Jana’s post has prompted:

Not only are women in the church not allowed to do things like give blessings to babies or confirm their children at baptism, but they aren’t even allowed (that I have ever seen or am aware of) to stand in the circle while a priesthood holder pronounces the blessing.

If it is just a matter of “authority”, and only holders of the priesthood having the authority to pronounce a blessing, what authority would it upset to let a mother stand in that company as her child is blessed or confirmed, rather than be confined to sitting in the audience as if she has nothing at all to do with the child?
JohnW Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Villate: Again, as an outsider, I don’t understand a lot of the subtleties that you’re discussion. I wonder if blacks in the Church felt the same type of passive acceptance before 1978. In retrospect, would that attitude make historical sense? “God has a good reason. Oops, not any more!”

I’m not super-confrontational, so haven’t asked every person I’ve met who was an adult in the Church pre-1978 about this. But none of the ones who’ve discussed it with me said, “It was a good policy.” The seemed to regard it as more of a historical blemish and embarrassment.

Every single time I read these discussions of the nature of power, authority, the meaning of the priesthood, and gender roles in the Church, it sounds to me, as an outsider, as contorted rhetorical arguments in support of something that people know doesn’t make objective sense.

That’s the same thing I hear when read statements which I’ll paraphrase as, “Well, that’s the way Jesus Christ set things up. Let’s somehow find the strength to be obedient.” Maybe because obedience in this case implies overcoming something that we don’t understand otherwise or doesn’t make sense without Authority telling us that it’s so.

I guess I have to be content with showing up every once in a while to ask questions which cause awkward silences.
Villate Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 6:47 PM
JohnW – Some Black members apparently did feel some sort of passive acceptance, since there were a fair number who joined the Church. I don’t understand why that restriction was in place, either. It seems to me that for some reason, God wanted it in place. He could easily have changed it if He had seen fit. I don’t buy the “the Church was just too racist to accept them” argument that so many put forth. Joseph Smith didn’t seem to have a problem. If Brigham Young was truly a prophet, and that’s open to debate for many people, but I think he was, then I would think that if God told him when he first started saying, “No, blacks should not be ordained” that He wanted them to be ordained, Brigham would have done it. For some reason, God did not say this to Brigham and the policy became set, only to cause problems later when people began trying to justify it rather than simply saying, “God wants it so.” For whatever reason, God allowed this to go on for some time. There is a lot of evidence both from his own writings and others’ that David O. McKay thought a lot about “the Negro problem” and even petitioned the Lord to allow the priesthood to be given to all worthy men as early as the 1950s. For whatever reason, God did not permit it at that time. Apparently He later changed His mind or allowed things to happen that had not happened before. I don’t know why. I don’t know why God does or allows a lot of things. God’s ways are not our ways. You’re right, it doesn’t seem to make sense that in the LDS Church, women are not ordained to the priesthood. But that’s the way it is. Perhaps it will change, though I doubt it, and frankly I can’t see what good it would do except to make a few women feel better about themselves and give a lot of others even more work to do than they already have plus put them under covenants that the men aren’t doing so hot a job living up to right now as it is. You’re not making me feel awkward, JohnW. I put it all on God. He’s got plenty of ’splainin’ to do already, and I’m sure when we march up to Him at the judgment to angrily demand that He tell us the purpose of this or that that He’ll do it and we’ll say something like, “Oh, that. OK.” In the meantime, I try to act as I think Jesus would have me act and be kind and loving toward those around me, hoping that His atonement will make up for my many shortcomings. How would having the priesthood and more “power” in the Church make me any better at doing that?

I think it’s interesting that Jana and Elaine both seem to see having or not having the priesthood as being somehow related to women’s relationships with their children. When I think of what it means to hold the priesthood, participating in ordinances involving my children doesn’t even enter my mind. The priesthood is not a tool to help parents become closer to their children (well, I guess the sealing ordinance helps parents be closer to their children). It exists to be the way to exercise the power of God in behalf of any and all people.
Jana Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 7:46 PM
I guess for me, I don’t have a problem with some people having administrative authority and some people not having it. But that it totally hinges on whether one has a Y chromosome, doesn’t make sense to me. There are also all kinds of ways that women could be more involved in ordinances that they are denied for whatever reason. I gave the example in my post of wanting to conduct my daughter’s baptism service. It made no sense to me that I couldn’t stand up and announce the program but that a priesthood holder that didn’t even know my daughter had to do it. Standing in the circle at blessings and ordinations (as discussed in an earlier comment) is another example of a rather arbitrary way that women are shut out of such events.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 8:40 PM
What initiated this post was an emotional surprise. It is even in Jana’s title! Yet, nearly all responses have blithely passed right on by without even considering its deeper message: a cry from something deep within asking to be noticed–asking to be heard.

I want to return to that beautiful place and wonder what that message truly was — and still is. I don’t want Jana to be embarrassed, sorry or ashamed or — God forbid — have to defend herself! Yet that is what seems to have happened. Instead, all I see in reply is a lot of lofty rationalizations without any apparent true interest in or validation of her deeper, emotional and spiritual message. I want to return to that place, Jana, and not allow it to be eclipsed by head stuff, all of which seems asleep to the beauty of the meaning of those shawls, the mother-daughter relationship–their intimacy; the spirit of it all; the depth of the tradition that the modern rabbi expanded to include every soul. What Light!

Having shared this post with my own beloved wife, she asks: “Why can’t those people just accept Jana’s experience for what it is? It was beautiful! And why can’t they share her sorrow?”
Jana Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 11:12 PM
Eugene, your validation and kindness means a lot to me. My post wasn’t intended to re-hash women and the priesthood issue (although that seems to invariably stem from any discussion about ‘women’s issues in the church’).

When my kids were given the Holy Ghost we spoke about it as a comforter, as a blanket being wrapped around them to warm them and to protect them from evil. The prayer shawls were, symbolically, like that. But that the gift came from the mother to her daughter–the very embrace of the shawl mimicking the embrace of her mother. That was so very powerful. It spoke to me with many layers–the one addressed here of my grieving for not being able to participate in my kids’ rituals. Also present were my feelings about my own troubled relationship with my earthly mother (I’m working on that, but it’s complicated stuff), my sorrow about the death of my father (he was always more of the hugger in my family and some days I just ache to feel his secure arms again) and my own longing to connect with the divine feminine–my Heavenly Mother.

Perhaps I should ask Villate and Bish and JohnW and others speaking on this thread…What experiences have you had that have caught you by surprise with a feeling of deep spiritual hunger or loss? I would love to have you share them with me/us.
Caroline Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Jana, I think I know exactly what you experienced.

One of the first times I attended a United Church of Christ service, I cried too. It was the a Sunday near the 4th of July, and I was moved by hymns that talked about God blessing the whole world, other countries being wonderful, etc. It was so unexpected. That and the gender inclusiveness in the hymns. I was stunned by the careful way the hymn authors included men and women, male and female pronouns. It was what my soul needed and I felt filled in a way I had never felt filled in Sacrament Meeting before.

I am determined to remain an active member of the Church, so in the face of institutionalized LDS patriarchy I am doing what I can to take control of my spiritual life. I sing gender inclusively in all my meetings, no doubt raising the eyebrows of those around me. I speak and read inclusively in lessons. I stand in the circle (circle of two – me and my husband) when my baby is blessed. If I can ever summon the spirituality, I will lay hands on and bless my children. The LDS church may exclude me from certain types of leadership and the performance of ordinances at church on Sunday, but I refuse to let it stand in my way in my own home. I will do what I need to do to feel like a full human being.

I read Villate response to JohnW with interest. It’s fascinating how some women can feel so empowered by the current church structure, and others feel so marginalized. My husband is ward clerk. ‘In the bishopric’ so to speak. And I am continually frustrated by the hours worth of decisions that are being made by 5 men in a room together with no input from women. No women helping to decide callings, sermon topics, 5th Sunday presentations, etc. It makes me very sad to think about.

But in those moments of sadness, I also try to remember that these 5 men are well intentioned people doing their best to figure out ways to help people. And that goes for most of the men in the general hierarchy of the Church. They are indeed (unknowingly) perpetuating a troubling status quo, but they are also trying to help and inspire people to be better.

All I can do, JohnW, is hope and pray for the Church to change. And it will. I just have to wait it out. I don’t have Villate’s faith that God is responsible for the bungling the Church has done in the past. I chalk it up to people being the products of their prejudiced time, as well as to institutionalized inertia.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 5:45 AM
Bravo Jana! Yes, that is the question to ask of all us responders: What experiences have you had that have caught you by surprise with a feeling of deep spiritual hunger or loss? Please share.

And Caroline, the Church IS changing! It can’t help doing so as leaders at all levels wake up and find the courage to honor their personal consciences beyond the sleeping institutional ones. As far as the LDS Church is concerned, I see two outmoded and ill-advised policies about to bite the dust: seniority and exclusivity.
Wild Horses Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Thanks, Jana, for such a touching story.

As for the discussion that followed, all I’m going to say is my current mantra: Life isn’t about being right; it’s about learning to love. I am so discouraged that Mormonism so often is used to create division instead of as a stepping stone to connection.
Jana Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Note to Bish:
Thank you for answering my questions. I see much compassion in your approach to your role as bishop. I have experienced few who are as thoughtful in their calling–particularly in being inclusive of marriage partners. Thank you for sharing.
ScottsValleyBob Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 2:22 PM
For whatever it is worth… I am a disempowered male in the church. (Let us face it, if you don’t have IT in the church, you just don’t have it. No matter what sort of steroids flow in your veins.)

In these later years I have come to understand that someone needs to organize and keep it functioning. Someone needs to do the job of baptizing. Just like at work, the boss does all the talking in the meetings because someone has to, apparently (if the boss is male, and sometimes if she is female).

My wonderful wife had way more power in the Church than I ever did, as RS president, YW president, Camp Director, and many other important callings. She also had a huge impact on the family and its direction. In some ways I moved the mouth but she said the words. Feminine influence.

The bottom line… Why are all McDonald’s Restaurants the same? Because it works. Why don’t we change the Church and make it look different? Because it works. Why do we put up with the misery of hard nosed bishops who, because the mantle of judge sits so heavily on them, make our children leave the Church? Because, overall, it works.

Why can’t we do things differently? Because it might not work!! Can women participate in a more meaningful way in the Church and still have it grow at 6% or 7% per year? I can not tell you that.

Your unhappiness is the price of making things work. My children leaving the Church are the price of making things work. Women are disempowered because it works. Apparently the Church must, overall, benefit. A policy will not change unless it is shown not to work, and even then maybe not.
Jana Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 6:24 PM
ScottsValleyBob
At the risk of sounding disrespectful, there are lots of things that “work” that are just plain wrong. Take, say, the slave trade. And personally I wouldn’t say that Mcdonald’s “works”–horrible tasting food, awful service, impersonal multinational corporation. bleh. Give me homegrown veggies and handmade bread any day. The church certainly doesn’t “work” for everyone and it changes all the time because of revelation and/or social expediency. I see no reason why the church would break if women were offered leadership roles/priesthood authority.
pmb Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 6:38 PM
ScottsValleyBob
In fairness, maybe you should let us know what it means to “work.” Does it mean that the church functions, that it grows, that it brings personal uplift to its members? Because this statement

“Your unhappiness is the price of making things work”

is very sad, and unfortunately, true in many cases.

To me, growth does not mean the church ‘works’. When I see something beautiful and touching in a church meeting (of any faith), that ‘works.’ When I feel like the service I give is meaningful, that ‘works.’ I think religion can only ‘work’ if it is inclusive. Otherwise, what is the point of religion?
Lessie Says:
January 8th, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Jana, I just wanted to thank you for posting this. Even though my children are both boys, it hurt so much to see them blessed and not be allowed to participate. I think I can understand why the placing of the shawl was such a touching moment. I too longed to be included in my children’s spiritual progression, but had to watch from the sidelines. Like Caroline mentioned (although my beliefs about God have to be worked out first), if I can ever summon the spirituality, I fully plan on giving my two boys blessings or at least some kind of communication of what I hope for them in life.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:04 AM
Jana, here is my answer to your question “What experiences have you had that have caught you by surprise with a feeling of deep spiritual hunger or loss?”

One Sunday last October while attending the tiny parish of the local Russian Orthodox Church here in Los Alamos to sing with them in their regular Sunday morning liturgy service, I had a surprisingly deep response of weeping. I so love to sing this wonderful ancient music and especially to sing an entire Biblical chapter when asked, as I was that morning. It is a marvelous tradition.

Generally, in the Orthodox Sunday liturgy, there is a window of time allotted to the priest to speak extemporaneously as he is moved by the Spirit. How I wish I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d had my pocket recorder! Priest John began by recounting an event in the life of Jesus (I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even remember the specific verses now) to demonstrate the Savior’s lack of fear: He needed no protection, no fortresses. The priest then moved into a message specifically designed for those present and I was moved to tears for the remainder of his mini-sermon. He spoke of how Jesus set the example of the vulnerability required to commune intimately with the Spirit of His (our) Father. The priest then spoke of poets and painters and artists of all kinds, who must open themselves to be vulnerable in their search for the divine connection. They then must struggle to express their experience through art. From there Father John spoke of all the saints, whose icons lined the parish walls, that they are revered (not worshiped!) by the Russian Orthodox tradition for having lived lives of vulnerability, which was manifest in their works and legacies.

Suddenly I understood! And my long-term discomfort with such artifacts vanished.

As Priest John closed his remarks and turned to leave the lectern, I was moved to exclaim ?¢Ç¨?ìAmen! The truth has been spoken!?¢Ç¨¬ù With a surprised smile (such exclamations are not normally heard in such meetings!) The priest turned back around to face us all, humbly bowed, and with obvious joy quietly said, ?¢Ç¨?ìThank you?¢Ç¨¬ù.

It was one of those spiritually enriching moments, and I left the parish grounds wanting to share it with my greater family.
Villate Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:32 AM
I don’t know whether it’s positive or negative that I have not had a lot of significant feelings of spiritual loss or grief in my life, certainly none related to what I can or can’t do at Church. I have at times felt surprise that people who do not seem to be living lives conducive to spirituality proclaim great feelings of love for and from God, and dismay that I, who try to observe the commandments I’ve been taught and pray and study the scriptures in an effort to know God and Jesus Christ better, have only infrequent experiences of feeling loved and approved of, though some of these experiences have been profound and continue to affect me. My mission president once told me, with pride, that I was a very low-maintenance missionary, meaning that I did my job competently for the most part, with little additional instruction or assistance from others. I think I’m that way in my life as well. If I had not been born to LDS parents and had not developed a testimony of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon at a relatively young age (about 15, I think, when I read it through for the first time), I doubt that I would be particularly religious as an adult.
Villate Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 6:44 AM
Caroline – Not all wards function the way yours does. I’m aware of at least one ward in which there is a “Sacrament Meeting Coordinator”, a woman, who chooses the topics and songs and even makes suggestions for people to speak, though of course a member of the bishopric extends the actual calling to speak. In our ward, the women make nearly all the decisions about how the budget is spent – the priesthood quorums almost always end the year having held few or no activities, while the Primary, Relief Society, YW, and Activities Committee (chaired by a woman in our ward – me!) use all of theirs. In addition, welfare money and goods, though disbursed officially by the Bishop, are effectively approved and assigned by the Relief Society president. There is a lot of flexibility in wards, especially out in the boonies where there’s a shortage of members to fill necessary callings and where the bishops may not have been indoctrinated with the Utah mentality. I’ve never encountered a ward in which the bishop or bishopric exercised absolute power over all the doings of the wards, though I’ve heard of them. Then again, the closest I’ve ever gotten to Zion is Southern California.
ScottsValleyBob Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Working, I guess, in this context, means living and growing. At some level Mac Donald’s “works” because it is a dynamic company making money and growing. It also causes pain. You may not like it, but it “works.”

A book that clearly colored my thinking about the Church is Darwin’s Cathedral by Sloan, I believe. He talks about religions in terms of Darwinian success. He mentions the Mormons as one of the archetypal Darwinian successes.

You know, in your heart of hearts, that Darwinian success means pain. Think of all of the pain that competition and survival of the fittest requires. Now remember that God is the author of this regimen. I think it is the test of life to live in the Darwinian world and to live an altruistic life, not to worry about the pain and uncertainty and death.

We are all surely caught up in a Darwinian struggle, if not with lions, then with virus and bacteria and other religions like Islam and Catholicism. We even are Darwinian in our breeding success, think sexual selection, and think about all the pain that entails.

In this Darwinian context, the Church works in that it is seeming to survive and grow. There will be pain.
anon Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 3:11 PM
If you looked up “Sunstone” in the dictionary, it would have a picture of Jana’s “. . .and I rarely cry.”
kevinf Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Long time since I commented here, but it’s a slow day at work, and I was touched by Jana’s story. There is much we can learn from other cultures and religious traditions, and perhaps the effort should be, within the existing strictures of the church, to try and make more opportunities for involvement.

I’m always a little saddened when I see those who sincerely want more spiritual blessings from church involvement and activity feeling excluded. There is much sadness and pain, and there is also much joy in church service. I don’t know how to overcome many of the obstacles you see to your involvement in the church, and the ordinances in particular.

ScottsValleyBob, the church works through Darwinian evolution? Our architecture may have McDonalds-like tendencies, but I certainly hope we aren’t really that completely homogenized. I’m not sure where you’re coming from, but I don’t see the church locked in a struggle with the evangelicals in a survival of the fittest battle.

I’d be interested in hearing ways within the existing policies that we could be more inclusive of people like Jana. (I hope that doesn’t sound condescending. I didn’t think it was until I saw it on the screen. I’m not sure what I meant by “people like Jana”). I think we’ve made progress, albeit somewhat too slow for some. In our ward, women regularly give the opening prayers in sacrament meeting, and they are not usually paired for prayers as married couples. We include singles as much as possible in leadership and activities. We’ve tried to equalize as much as possible the activities of YM and YW. But certainly there is more we can do, while we anticipate perhaps greater changes in policy and practice, if not doctrine.
Caroline Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 10:54 PM
Kevinf, a year ago I wrote a huge blog post just on that topic – practical things that can be done on a ward level to include women more.

http://madwomanoutoftheattic.blogspot.com/2006/11/making-church-better-for-women.html

Some of the things go a little outside the bishop’s handbook, but several don’t. Here are a few:
-call a woman Sunday school president
-encourage teachers to quote women in lessons
-Invite the RS president to come to PEC and/or other bishopric meetings
-call a female clerk
-make women anchor speakers in sacrament meeting
-call couples to have co-equal joint callings
kevinf Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Caroline,

Thank you. I’ll take a look at your post. Interesting to note that in Elder Ballard’s book “Counseling with our Councils”, one of the key themes he seemed to hit on is that too often the sisters of the church are overlooked and not utilized enough in ward and stake councils. He basically rebuked priesthood leaders for failures in this area particularly.
susan Says:
January 10th, 2008 at 3:13 PM
I just was reading along and it triggered me wanting to tell my story a little – sorry. So I am a divorced mother of 5 children, whose father left the church and did everything he could to destroy my children’s budding testimonies, the end result being that none of them are active, all are grown, my daughter came home to live with me a couple of years ago to attend medical school, bringing her boyfriend. She wouldn’t marry him because of fear of mnarriage (very messy divorce). the spirit told me to let them live in my home and I did, accepting them both for who and where they were. I love them both dearly. Then a few months later the bishop called me to be RS President. No sooner was I called than he began a campaign to force my daughter to either marry or end her relationship – despite the fact that her boyfriend was non-Mormon (not even believing in God), and my daughter was completely inactive. Neither flaunted their living arrangements, but the Bishop of course stated that it was open knowledge that they lived together in my home. However they had moved in when I was an obscure ward member who never spoke up in church because of my shame over my divorce and my only calling had been RS pianist. I certainly was not seeking a more prominent position and was stunned when he called me. Most of the pressure was on me because I (rightly or wrongly) tried to protect my daughter and boyIfriend from his forceful methods, while still trying to work with them to move them towards marriage and possibly even church activity. He met with her twice, about 6 months apart, the last time he came down on her hard enough she called all her brothers and sisters and they all decided to give up their church memberships. I was absolutely DEVASTATED. In fact I think it was about the worst moment in my life, and if it had not been for God giving me an incredible experience I do not know what I would have done. I decided to go to the Stake President – and I informed my bishop of this plan – after breaking down in tears. The stake pres was actually very wonderful, asked me what I wanted him to do – and I requested the bishop not be allowed to talk to any of my children again (he had had several other unpleasant and inappropriate interactions with them and the situation was pretty out of hand with my kids being disrespectful to him and him getting more and more worked up),. The stake president did as I asked, the bishop followed the stake president’s direction, and I was able to calm my children down. None of them are active altho a couple of them have gone a couple of times. My daughter finally decided on her own to get married – and we had an incredible (non-temple) marriage, that brought great joy and peace to our family – and I was told by mormons and non-mormons alike it was probably the most beautiful, spiritual and FUN wedding they had ever been to.

I don’t know why I wanted to share this story – I think it has lots of lessons about power, abuse of power, judgment vs love, etc. I just know the church is a very painful organization. My stake president called it an “appalling” organization. I also know LOTS of miscarriages of justice occur in the church (not necessarily speaking of myself) but that God is perfectly just and judges us by the desires of our hearts, not where we are or anything like that. I sure have felt powerless a lot of times – working with this bishop was really hard, but I did survive 2 1/2 years of RS pres with him. I have no idea whether any of my kids will ever desire to come back to church, right now they are pretty negative about it. It is pretty hard to continue to want to go – very lonely and all that. Sometimes I just stay home cause I feel too emotional to go. I wished women had more of a voice in the church, I wish the bishop had been a little more sensitive, but he is who he is. I don’t know if I wish women had the priesthood – I wish we all had good, supportive husbands!

I think short of women having the priesthood there are a TON of changes the church could make that would improve women’s status – but I think they are afraid if they make any changes we will want more and more. I don’t think that would happen. It would be nice if they would let mom’s participate in blessings, at least passively. I agree that women do have a lot of positions in the ward, but they are all auxiliaries, when you get to the stake level or above – the auxiliary presidents are among the least powerful positions in the church. Ward women have far more power than their stake and church counterparts. I think that is really sad. I don’t think church headquarters listens to women at all really, I tried to train my bishop to listen to women, but he really doesn’t get it. Our stake president seems able to do that however. So I guess I was lucky there
Bored in Vernal Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 12:43 AM
I know I am late commenting here, and I don’t know if anyone will read it but Jana. But this morning I have been reading these comments and they strike me as farcical in the extreme. The things that Vilate is saying could very well be coming from my mouth, except that I would be saying them in a sarcastic tone of voice. Just take a look at some of these statements and use a “BiV voice” in your head as you read them (not my real voice, my Eleanor Roosevelt blog-voice):

Most of what gets done, locally speaking, in the Church is done by women. They?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re the ones who check on each other and each other?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s families, do the work of the wards (taking meals to people, teaching lessons on Sundays, arranging activities and therefore the money that is spent on them, etc.), and encouraging their husbands, home teachers, local leaders, and so forth to do things or make changes on a local level. And that proves that we have power, or that we do the slave-work?

The Bishop generally chooses the leaders of the various quorums and auxiliaries, but if a woman is in a leadership position in an auxiliary, she chooses her own counselors in most cases and determines the direction the auxiliary will take, which I guess that is a form of power. Anyone, male or female, can decline a calling. Technically I suppose they are supposed to ?¢Ç¨?ìreport to?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìget permission from?¢Ç¨¬ù their male leaders, but in my experience, the Bishop nearly always relies on the good judgment of the people involved and usually doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even check up on them. Yes, we do have the awesome power to decline a calling. And when we are there, we can do what we want, as long as it doesn’t rock the boat or attract too much attention. I guess that’s a form of power, right???

On a macro level, the General Authorities are men, though most of the auxiliaries are led by women. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know that these women are considered GAs, but they have a fair amount of ?¢Ç¨?ìpower?¢Ç¨¬ù in deciding what will happen in the auxiliaries they lead on a Church-wide basis, again subject to ?¢Ç¨?ìreview?¢Ç¨¬ù or whatever, but I suspect left quite a bit to themselves in practice. Many of the committees that create Sunday School and other curriculum, decide the disbursement of tithes, etc. are made up of men and women (probably not in equal numbers) and they are under the supervision of various members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Quorums of the Seventy, who are men. If this is power, then I guess the men hold a lot of it. Men are good at bureaucracy. Human nature being what it is, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not sure that women would do that much better a job were they the ones in ?¢Ç¨?ìpower?¢Ç¨¬ù, to be honest. Will you just review this statement and analyze what point you have just made, dear???

There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s no evidence in the scriptures that Jesus ordained any women to the priesthood or even that women held prominent positions in the early Church, only that they did most of the work, as they do now, while men blathered on about doctrine. And now it becomes more obvious why you don’t want to hold the priesthood. There will always be some women who are content to retreat to the kitchen to wash the dishes while the men blather on.

When I think of what it means to hold the priesthood, participating in ordinances involving my children doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even enter my mind. The priesthood is not a tool to help parents become closer to their children (well, I guess the sealing ordinance helps parents be closer to their children). Well, I guess maybe rites and ordinances can help parents be closer to their children–isn’t this what Jana’s post is about?

Sorry to be so catty, but it’s that time of the month, another reason why women should obviously never hold the priesthood.
Gordon Hill Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 11:05 PM
As a non practicing Mormon I stood on the outside of the SL temple while my daughter was married. The grooms parents from Houston were with me and they did not appreciate the fact that their only son was getting married and they were excluded from this most important event. Needless to say they are less than impressed with this Exclusionary church, they were graciously polite but if the church leaders could only open their eyes to see the bitterness caused by their exclusionary practices they would never again say that mormonism is about families. Mormonism is about splitting up families in the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people.
I believe much of the negativity toward mormons like Mitt Romney comes from this kind of insulting behaviour that the church dishes out daily and has no understanding of the bitter feelings many people have for the church because of these insults. No missionary lesson will ever be powerful enough to overcome the insult of excluding parents from one of the most important ceremonies of their and their childrens lives.
Gordon Hill
Jana Says:
January 12th, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Gordon:
Thank you for sharing this reminder of how women aren’t the only ones who might feel excluded from LDS ordinances. My spouse went through a similar experience with his family because of their frustration that they couldn’t attend our wedding ceremony. It was hard for them and at the time I had very little sympathy because I was wholly focused on my own dreams about my wedding–I couldn’t see how it must’ve hurt to be marginalized in this important ritual for their oldest son.
Troy Says:
January 14th, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I have been considering and researching a vein of concern which is loosely fits into this blog. It is a concern relating to the policies of the church dealing with disfellowshipment. Specifically, not allowing participation in church meetings, not being able to pray publically, not taking the sacrament (when worthy), and not being able to hold a calling (of any type). If a person is living worthy and is abstaining from the pratice for which one was disaplined, how are any of these policies going to help???? I agree that there is some benefits and purposes; like protecting the name of Christ and where much is given much is required. There is also a benefit of increased appreciation for these things once they are again regained. However, do these benefits and others outweigh the problems they create?
It is my experience in the last 8 years being involved in a well established 12 step program that getting one involved as soon as possible is the best way to helping the individual. Will it help an individual more to make a commitment to keep the commandments through the ordinance of the sacrament or to have them not participate? Will it help the seeker of forgiveness more to not participate in gospel discussions in gospel doctrine (or essentials) and priesthood or to contribute his strength and experience (testimony) to the group? Will it help the individual more to hold a calling and commitment to contribute to the ward (this could be scouting, activities committee, and a host of other callings that don’t necessarily equate spiritual purity) or for the individual to do nothing to contribute? And how can a person praying and asking for the spirit to be in a meeting hurt anyone?
Now I know that there are exceptions to all of these examples but if one is feeling repentant and has experienced the love of Heavenly Father why does the church ,in general, require a year after such to forgive and include the individual?
Davey Says:
January 15th, 2008 at 9:59 PM
This is bringing up an older post… but is Job really so faithful and persistent? Remember when he curses God too? I’ve never understood the phrase “the patience of Job.”

Seeing Falling when it opens in Salt Lake this week. I’m excited to see what I think. I love all of Dutcher’s other work, and admire the guy a lot.
JohnR Says:
January 17th, 2008 at 8:52 AM
For added context, here’s my report of the same Bat Mitzvah.
Juan de la Cruz Says:
January 20th, 2008 at 8:01 AM
Bish:

I have no idea what ?¢Ç¨?ìLDS notions of power and privilege?¢Ç¨¬ù really means in the context of being a disciple of Christ. That is all I am interested in being.

If that were true, you wouldn’t sign yourself “the bish” and you wouldn’t make nonsense claims like “The decision regarding who is given authority must be clear (or we would have rival claims), and it must be arbitrary (or else it would lead to pride).”

the utter fallaciousness of that statement is demonstrated by A) the fact that there have been rival claims to power in the LDS church, ranging from the schism between those who followed Joseph’s son and those who followed Brigham, to those who claimed for so long that black men should also have the priesthood, to those who argue that women should be given the priesthood today, and B) the pride and arrogance of so many priesthood holders, who feel that their status is somehow a mark of their righteousness.

If you truly don’t know what “LDS notions of power and privilege” really means, in the context of being a disciple of Christ or in any other context, it’s because you’re not paying attention, not asking the appropriate questions of yourself and the god you worship. You SHOULD know, because much of Christ’s ministry was devoted to making explicit, turning inside out and showing the inadequacy of the notions of power and privilege current in his day. If you can’t take that lesson from the New Testament and apply it to your own life and your own day, just as the Book of Mormon commands, you’re failing to do your job, not only as a bish but simply as the disciple of Christ you claim you’re interested in being.
Nate Housley Says:
January 25th, 2008 at 11:22 AM
A couple thoughts were going through my head as I was reading the comments. I’m not going to share my first thought, because its motive was to marginalize and contain Jana’s and others’ feelings about the topic, and fortunately Eugene called me to repentance. Thanks, Eugene, and thanks everyone else for your comments.

This led me to my second thought, and it has to do with expectations of the Church. Many of us, practicing or non-practicing Mormon alike, think that the Church should be everything to everyone. Is this because of the way the Church is sold, or should it be, if it really is led by revelation, everything to everyone? I wonder because Mormons often conceive of the Church as having the whole truth. This is fallacious–the “world” is not nearly as spiritually impoverished as one might guess from the average Sacrament meeting–but nonetheless prevalent. Maybe Mormons also romanticize the benefits of church?

My own sense of spiritual loss came earlier this year. After four years at BYU, I could definitely feel the Church membership’s distaste for heterodoxy. Not feeling emotionally strong enough to ingratiate myself weekly on a congregation that didn’t fully value me, I wondered if I should stop going to Church. I resolved that I would, for the sole reason that I couldn’t go to the temple if I stopped going to the Church, and my experiences in the temple lately had been the opposite of my experiences in Church; I felt too valued!

I still go to church, and I still don’t feel fully appreciated there. But I think that experience helped me realize that I needed more emotional support from my family and close friends and to place such expectations on total strangers, no matter what commandments they live by, was unrealistic and unfair.

I don’t mean to imply that others’ experiences are similar or that they should learn from my example. My point is just that, however heretical it may be, I believe the Church can’t be everything to everyone. This sounds callous, but I’m not trying to say “shut up and like it.” On the contrary, by saying this I’m hoping to remove a stigma from stating how the Church has failed to meet one’s needs.
John Hamer Says:
February 7th, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Great post, Rory! I completely agree with you. Mainline Mormons have been attempting to build an alliance with Evangelical Christians for half a century. Along the way, it has been the Mormons who have compromised their identity and adopted Evangelical thinking. This is probably an example that will close minds, but I think that the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice divide is a real example. Mainline Mormons have adopted the hardline Evangelical position that human consciousness begins at conception, even though traditional Mormon doctrine includes an understanding of the Pre-Existance of spirits and the idea that spirits enter the body either late in the pregnancy (the “quickening”) or at birth. I remember very clearly from Saturday’s Warrior, my sister played the role of Emily. Emily was the youngest daughter in the Pre-Existent family and was going to be born into the family. However, when the mother miscarried that did not end Emily’s chance at earth life. It meant that Emily might have to be born into a different family. Ultimately the mother became pregnant again and Emily’s spirit entered the body of the second baby at birth. People may say, “well that was just a play,” but we had that same understanding as a Mormon family in the 1970s. My mother had a number of miscarriages, but she felt that there was one more spirit waiting to come down into our family. This feeling was ultimately realized with the successful birth of my youngest sister. My point is not that Mormons should be in favor of abortion. Everyone opposes abortion. My point is that Mormons needn’t have adopted the hardcore pro-life position of Evangelicals, when they might just as well have adopted the view that the government should allow everyone to exercise their free agency in this matter (i.e., being against abortion but being pro-choice). This is just one example of how Mormons compromised distinctive beliefs in order to build bridges with Evangelicals — even though Evangelicals have no interest in compromising to build bridges with Mormons.
Kristine Says:
February 7th, 2008 at 8:03 PM
Way too many interesting questions in here to know where to start…

I think Feldman gets it wrong when he posits doctrinal moderation as a function of cultural pressure. (One should be suspicious of any thesis that contains the phrase “theology and practices” as a compound subject of a single sentence!). Certainly there have been policy changes to move along (however belatedly) with the American mainstream, but I would argue that much of the doctrinal movement of the last half-century or so–let’s call it neo-orthodox drift, for shorthand–is largely the result of historical accidents that have amplified the doctrinal preferences of a few outspoken individuals (Joseph F. Smith, BRM, BKP…) and not a reaction to cultural pressure.

As John’s example points out, though, the relative dearth of officially established doctrine does allow members to modulate their personal theological preferences to suit their political and ideological commitments. In fact, despite the apparent shift in members’ personal beliefs, there has been no official change in doctrine around ensoulment or abortion– when a General Conference talk made reference to “the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception”, the “moment of conception” bit was excised from the print version of the talk.

Feldman’s final guess about the church coming to look more like “mainline Protestantism” is also flawed–it could be argued that Mormonism actually looked more like, say, Presbyterianism on the ground in 1950 than it does now, and Mormon political and intellectual commitments were both more diverse and more moderate then than they are now. What we’ve done culturally for the last couple of decades is to ally ourselves with the far-right fringes of Protestantism, rather than the mainline. And as somebody who spent high school dreading the day after the annual showing of “The Godmakers” to the youth groups of the big evangelical churches in my hometown outside of Nashville, I could have told Mitt (or anyone else who had asked) that the Christian Right will NEVER accept Mormons even as distant theological cousins, no matter what anyone says to Larry King or even (alas!) Krista Tippett.

All of which is to say, Rory, that these are good questions to ask, but we needn’t be overanxious about the answers. The problem of finding Mormonism’s theological core is and will remain a problem for Mormons to wrestle with from within–though even if (heaven forfend!) Mormonism were to wish to assimilate doctrinally into a more evangelical position, we will be stopped short by their rejection as well as by our own theological history.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Having just been turned on to Harold Bloom after reading Henry Miles’ published correspondence with Bloom in the most recent Dialogue [Winter 2007], I noticed this intriguing and timely line in the beginning of Bloom’s The American Religion about modern Mormon hierarchy and decision-making. It was written in 1991: “Benson is now ninety-three; next in line is Howard W. Hunter, eighty-three, and then Gordon B. Hinckley, eighty. Behind them is the powerful Thomas S. Monson, only sixty-two. When President Monson becomes Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, there may be less reliance upon the Book of Mormon as the royal road into the Mormon religion. [Emphasis added.]

How does this bode for the future now that Mitt is gone and the national debate and spotlight glare on the Mormon Church has been suddenly been turned off?
Matt Thurston Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Though not a Romney supporter, I was surprised by my reaction to his defeats in the major primaries leading up to and including Super Tuesday. I felt disappointment, even sadness. Felt it again yesterday when I heard he was withdrawing from the race. Though Romney’s “Mormonness” was only one of several factors that contributed to his defeat, it is hard not to focus more on that factor and take his rejection personally.
Eric Goold Says:
February 8th, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Rory:

I wrote this in response to your excellent post. I sent it to Dan for the Election Issues issue, but he didn’t want it. I say change is indeed inevitable. But there’s a fundamental irony: what makes us different (as Mormons) is what makes us strong. That ‘core’ you speak of, hopefully, will never change. Anyway, this is what your post made me think of.

Mitt Romney dropped out of the Presidential race today, and I am glad. I disagreed with basically every political position he took, and changed, and took again. I firmly believe that no man, even a Mormon one, should be allowed to buy the Presidency, which is essentially what he was attempting. Just because he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rich, doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d be a good President. I thought he ran a condescending, smarmy campaign and his attempt to be the standard bearer for Ronald Reagan was not only revoltingly egocentric, it was also vastly misguided. I thought his sound bite in Florida with inner city youth was the most pathetic pandering I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve ever seen. I thought his bickering and sniping with John McCain and Mike Huckabee was demeaning and shameful. Mitt Romney?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s legacy in the 2008 campaign is one of shame and disgust, as far as I am concerned.

But I still would have voted for him.

I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve had the misfortune of watching this election from South Carolina, my latest outpost in a vagabond writing career. The Palmetto State is a firewall for the Republicans. South Carolina has voted for every single successful Republican Presidential nominee since 1980. You can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t win as a Republican, everybody says, if you don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t win South Carolina. McCain won, mostly because of his military record and there are so many veterans down here. Huckabee, the former Baptist preacher, was a very close second. Romney didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even beat Fred Thompson, who will never be President but could definitely play a good one on TV.

South Carolina has a well-earned reputation for dirty pool when it comes to the election season. Bizarre groups will emerge with no official standing or ties to candidates but who use whatever tactics are necessary to get their man elected. In 2004, they spread the rumor that McCain had fathered an ill-legitimate child with an African American mother. It was obviously false but it worked; George Bush won the state and used the momentum to roll to the nomination. These Southerners will stop at nothing.

This year their favorite target was Romney. And what did they go after? His Mormon faith. You may hear otherwise in the media, but I can say this for a fact: Evangelicals hate Mormons. They always have, and they always will. And they had much cannon fodder to fire at Romney.

Mormonism is a cult, they would say. ?¢Ç¨?ìDon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t you believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers??¢Ç¨¬ù Huckabee notoriously asked Romney. And then they have the garments to work with. Do you really believe in holy underwear? Those jokes even made the talk-show circuit.

The last straw for me was when the newspaper I work for ran an anti-Mormon ad. It was from ex-Mormon.com or one of those other internet sites that purport to have ?¢Ç¨Àúall the truth?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ about our false religion. The advertisement said, ?¢Ç¨?ìDo you want to know what Mormons REALLY believe??¢Ç¨¬ù Go to such and such website and learn the truth. Blah blah blah. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d seen them all over the internet but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d never seen one in print. Somebody paid to have that put in my paper, and my paper gladly took their money and ran it.

I was sickened. I was dismayed. Just think about the outrageous double-standard. If we had printed an ad that was anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic, we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d get sued. If we printed one that was anti-Baptist, all the nut jobs around here would put on capes and hoods and come burn down our building.

Romney had to give that now infamous speech from Texas earlier in the campaign that was supposed to defend his faith. It was a typically anticlimactic speech from Romney in a season full of them. He didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really do much defending of Mormonism, he just spoke in random terms about his right to HAVE his faith.

That, to me, is the fundamental issue. No other candidate was required to defend their faith. No other candidate was forced to justify the difficult doctrinal issues that ALL religions (particularly Christian ones) abound with. It is a fundamental irony that a party that requires its candidate to have and express faith, held Romney?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s faith against him.

People voted against Mitt Romney because he is Mormon.

I would have voted for him, for the same reason.

PS The very best summation of all these Romney issues that I have seen in on The New Republic website. Check out the blog written by Christopher Orr called, “Mitt Romney as Tarantino’s Superman.” It accurate. It hits all the nails on the head.
Gordon Hill Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 6:45 PM
The Mormon people have been used and disrespected by the evangelistic politiclal assault against Romney. The Mormons are a minority that only asks to have a political voice in America.
Sadly, in Utah, Mormons are a majority and work to deny a political voice to minorities such as gays, feminists and people who responsibly use alcohol.
The Mormons are and should be bitter about the assault on Mitts religion on the national political scene but, will they understand that they are doing exactly the same thing to many responsible people in Utah who are non-mormons or ex-mormons.
What goes around comes around.
I doubt that most mormons will see any connection between the disrepect they were shown in the national elections and the disprespect they show to non and ex mormons in Utah by not allowing them a political voice.
I’ve read the comments in the D News and the Trib and Mormons are bitter but, none of them seem to understand that in Utah they are guilty of the very same intolerance that they complain about.
R.W. Rasband Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 4:32 AM
Utah politics has been for too long corrupted by one-party rule. Maybe the shock of Mitt’s rejection will cause some reassessment among LDS voters (especially if Huckabee manages to weasel on to the ticket as vice-president.)
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 10:01 AM
R.W., why would Huckabee have to “weasel” his way to a VP spot? It sees to me that he is winning his way in that direction, contrary to Mitt who was caught at the chicken coop gate.
Stece Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Rory your article, even though it is well written, is out of date and I might add out of touch. Let me explain.

The LDS can never close the gap to the main stream Christianity. As long as the LDS church doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t accept the Trinity there will all ways be an unbridgeable gap. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t care if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m personally considered a Christian. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a title derived by men, I only care about my standing with God. This is an old argument that has gone on too long. The LDS belief that the Godhead is three separate personages flies in the face of what the Nicene Council established in 325 ad.

Looking at the population of churches in the US the LDS church is fourth in the number of members. The Catholic church has about 66 million followed by the Baptist faith with 16 million. Methodist / Wesleyan with 8 million and the LDS faith with 5.5 million. Keep in mind those figures are just within the US. (stats from http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html)

Change, why? The rate of growth of the LDS church gives it the upper hand. People can publicly laugh at the LDS church now but there will come a day when the church is too large to do so.

Change Why? Let me quote LeGrand Richards in A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p.3-4 revised edition.
A member of the Roman Catholic Church, came to Utah and spoke from the stand of the Salt Lake Tabernacle?¢Ç¨¬¶?¢Ç¨¬ùYou Mormons are all ignoramuses. You don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Catholic Church. The issue is between Catholicism an Mormonism. If we are right, you are wrong; if you are right, we are wrong; and that is all there is to it. The Protestant haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t a leg to stand on. For, of we are wrong, they are wrong with us, since they were a part of us and went out from us; while if we are right, they are apostates whom we cut off long ago. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there is no need for a Joseph Smith and Mormonism; but if we have not that secession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and Mormonism?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s attitude is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the gospel from ancient times, or the restoration of the gospel in latter days.?¢Ç¨¬ù

I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not changing because some splinter religious group thinks or says I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m this that or the other. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s bad practice criticizing someone else?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s religion. To criticize a religion you are not active in is like watching TV while standing outside looking through the window, you get the point, but miss the meaning.
Thomas Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Stece, I’m coming to think that the LDS leadership plays up the differences between the LDS conception of the Godhead and the traditional concept o the Trinity, in order to preserve at least some crucial difference between Mormonism and the rest of Christendom that would justify all the fuss and bother of a Restoration.

The fact is that, to use the language of the Nicene Creed (whose actual contents most Mormons couldn’t tell you), Jesus Christ is, in fact, “of one Being” with his Father. The Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants both declare that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost constitute one God.

I imagine Mormons, if they ever really thought much more about any of this, would describe “God” as a kind of three-person corporation, composed of the three personages of the Godhead. Just as Acme, Inc. is deemed one entity, despite consisting of multiple individual shareholders, so do the members of the Godhead combine in one sense into one God while at the same time maintaining their individual identities.

And this really isn’t too far off what classical Trinitarianism (as opposed to the modalism many Christians accidentally practice) declares about the nature of God, although being strung out on Platonist metaphysics, they’d probably recoil from the corporate analogy. In my opinion, this is a semantical issue hardly worth bothering with. The more significant difference, I think, lies in the Mormon conception of a personal, material, human-like God, who (depending on whom you ask) may or may not have been a mortal man at one point, and who humans can aspire to be made like.
Steve Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 8:58 AM
Should we change trying to fit in?

The question was asked in the article, ?¢Ç¨?ìWill we, as a people and as an institution, try to become even more like our distant cousins??¢Ç¨¬ù

Is that what we are trying to do, fit in or close the gap? Or, how much focus should we put on becoming more like our distant cousins?
Rory Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 9:34 AM
Steve,

Perhaps I’m out of touch or out of date, but I don’t think you’ve read my position carefully. I’m not advocating change, I’m lamenting the tendency of our more conservative members to ally themselves with the Christian Right, and the perceived loss of some of our unique strengths.
Steve Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 12:38 PM
I see where you are coming from with addressing your comments toward the conservative members tendencies.

There are so many question marks that I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m getting different feel.
Nate Housley Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I agree that much of the Church’s cultural emphasis has been influenced by politics, but I disagree that core doctrines have changed. To me, the core doctrines of the Church are the divinity of Jesus Christ and the reality of the Atonement and the nature of God and our relationship to Him. Plural marriage can come and go without disrupting those truths.

Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but when I read the article you reference, I disagreed with his assessment that the Church would continue to go mainstream. In fact, given mainstream Christianity’s dependence on politics to keep it unified, it seems rather shortsighted to predict such a thing in light of this year’s primaries and the splintering of the GOP. Considering that the popular moral wedge issues like abortion are being pushed to the backburner, I predict more political diversity in the Mormon community, which means more distance from mainstream Christianity.

Also, the author of the article must have missed the recent General Conference in which several speakers emphasized the LDS conception of the Godhead specifically in relation to that of mainstream Christianity.

Plus, considering mainstream Christianity’s aversion to science and Mormonism’s emphasis on education, we may take this chance to go along with the rest of the country in ditching mainstream Christians as backwards.
Nate Housley Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Thomas, I don’t think the LDS leadership has to play up differences to justify a Restoration. The difference between a metaphysical and a physical God is enormous. Aside from the philosophical implications of an endlessly retreating perfection (Platonism), a God who is a person and has passions elevates our human instincts. It is incoherent to maintain, as most Christian churches do, that our bodies pollute our spirits but that we should nonetheless avoid polluting our bodies through such things as fornication. Laws regarding physical purity (chastity, word of wisdom) make sense if something physical can be divine.

Furthermore, a human God who feels passionately forces us to retrain our vision of paradise. Rather than some sort of blissful detachment, true joy is anxiously serving and loving and feeling pain because of one’s attachment to others. This in turn affects the way we live our lives.
Brian Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Dude, most excellent post!!

Life is about finding our “tribes,” and being comfortable living within them. It takes courage to go “off the rez” in search of those tribes. He guides us back to where we belong, because He knows who we are and He wants us to find out, as well.
Joy Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 5:18 PM
My mom accompanied me when I took out my endownments. This is a great way for a mother to participate in an important ordinance.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 9:11 PM
How a apropos to read your post tonight! Earlier today (2/27) I had my regular Wednesday morning conversation with the local Russian Orthodox priest, who has become an enthusiastic Sunstone reader. He returned my most recent issue lent him last week before I’d read it myself. As I opened it I noticed your prize-winning essay, which I’ve not yet finished, so you were freshly on my mind.

And now you offer this post, which suddenly gives me a new sense of “tribe”! It allows me to keep my Mormonness without further apology as I wander new paths, including my father’s Russian Orthodox tradition and the increasing defection of almost all my children from their Mormon heritage or, as Harold Bloom might put it, “the people of Joseph”.

It also allows me to forgive myself for too often posting heresies in this blog space without the skill to empathize with other writers. Keep writing brother! We old guys can still learn from you younger, thoughtful and caring artists.
Kristine Says:
February 27th, 2008 at 9:16 PM
Stephen, I like this way of framing the questions. It raises a few for me: is the power of belonging to a tribe diluted by the recognition that one could belong to many? That is, does some of the potency of tribalism rest on an irrational sense of identity that won’t stand much scrutiny from a perspective located outside (off the reservation)? If so, is there any value in preserving that irrational sense, or should we always privilege the (rationally) examined life?
W.W. Beauchamp Says:
February 28th, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Building off of what Kristine said so well, I think that the power of belonging to a tribe lies in its separateness from other tribes. Being part of the Mormon tribe means just a little bit more than being part of the Mocha Ice Cream Lovers tribe. Stephen, perhaps it’s a little too easy to take the notion of tribe and make it all inclusive. The answer doesn’t lie in making every sub-grouping of the human species a tribe, like Junior apparently does (I haven’t read the book so I’m basing this on your interpretation of the end). That’s too easy. It’s like, we all belong to the human tribe. Duh. Self identity is lost if you spread it too thin; belonging to specific tribes makes us who we are.
pmb Says:
February 28th, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Yes, Beauchamp, a tribe revolving around ice cream is not as powerful as a tribe revolving around history, culture, and genetics. No argument there. But you say

“Self identity is lost if you spread it too thin; belonging to a specific tribe makes us who we are.”

And I wonder if self identity is lost when we store it all in one place-if you can only be truly authentic when you choose for yourself what to be, rather than let one group define it for you. In that case, taking a little of this culture and a little of that may make a stronger individual.
anon Says:
February 28th, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I am glad she made the documentary. I enjoyed it, and I hope it builds bridges for people. I just hopes she doesn’t believe that it was “objective” or “fair.”

If she does, I think the documentary would just illustrate how such undertaking cannot possibly divorce itself from the values and principles valued by its creator. Put differently, it merely illustrates the subjectivity of supposed objectivity.

To me, the values espoused by the creator of the documentary are in line with the values promulgated by institutions of higher-education. Just look at the way she contrasts Jensen (a great man) with Packer (another great man). She values Jensen fresh unrehearsed approach to representing the church, but seems to totally eschew Packer’s traditional, pious approach.

She seems to engage in the same pluralistic, politically correct approach exhibited by my friends and professors at my liberal law school. Smart people – but much more interested in the new ethics than the old virtues and traditional morality.

She gave the Jensens of the church a voice – which I think is great. I think to be more fair she would have given the Packers of the church an equal voice.
Rick Jepson Says:
February 28th, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I think that’s exactly what she tried to do.

And I think your response is more subjective than her documentary.

Just $0.02
David T. Says:
February 28th, 2008 at 11:59 PM
I, for one, was perplexed by the protesters of this documentary in my ward. I thought living in a Southern California ward among members who accepted Aaronic priesthood holders with earrings and Gospel Doctrine teachers who produce R-rated movies would embrace such an explorative, warts-n-all take on the religion. Yet, when I asked my quorum who among them thought the documentary was fair, only one hand went up. Some others were actually getting riled at the mention of it. For me it was a faith-promoting experience– I like the Joseph with the feet of clay; it made me feel closer to him and more appreciative of his accomplishments. As for my fellow members, well, we must have been watching a different show.
anon Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 12:12 AM
Rick,

I didn’t lay any claim to objectivity (in fact, if you had read closely, you’d see that I think objectivity is nearly impossible to achieve) – my response was my $0.02.

Maybe the documentary was her $0.02 – and that’s just fine.

However, your response to my comment seems to tow the Sunstone party line in the same terse thoughtless way supposedly exhibited by Boyd K. Packer when he tows the church’s party line. I’d like to be proven wrong on that. I’d like to meet the Sunstoner equivalent of Merlin K. Jensen.

Anon
Rory Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Anon,

I don’t see where Whitney claimed objectivity or fairness, only a hope that she did the topic justice. She did acknowledge that she was looking for objective voices to interview:

…but urgent and personal as well. People who in their description would begin to answer the foundational questions of viewers: Why should we care? Why in my busy life should I take the time to learn about this strange faith?

This makes sense – she is creating a product for viewers, and the people on screen need to be reliable subjects, but also engaging and interesting. I think her comments comparing Jensen and Packer were mostly directed at their interview style, that she tried to give President Packer a spot, but that in the end it just didn’t work for the needs of the documentary. There was much footage that ended up on the cutting room floor.

Also, in order to post this article on the blog we cut several sections from the print version. It’s very long as is, even longer if we had left it intact. Section II addresses many of the challenges facing a filmmaker, including dealing with bias, the problem of access, tone, psychology, and more.

One sample:

The problem of biases. How do you properly make use of, but not be used by, your own biases? With religion, most of us bring plenty of biases to the table. More so when that religion is Mormonism.

I am a questioner. So are my friends, both the believers and the unbelievers. I am drawn to these people, and I put them in my films. These are the people who are asking the big questions about life and death and ultimate meaning. I am not drawn to those who think they have the answers.

However, while researching my religious films, I occasionally meet people who possess a surreal certainty. Their faith seems uninflected by doubt. It can be maddening. It can be infuriating. For example, some survivors of 9/11 believed that they had been saved by God’s plan and didn’t seem to ponder that others, then, must have been incinerated through God’s plan.

With Mormons, as varied as they are, one useful generalization can be made: this religion emphasizes certainty-”knowing.” Doubt and questioning undermine faith and are dangerous. For me, faith is a flickering flame in the dark; it is intimately and inextricably connected to doubt. Light and dark, faith and doubt are different sides of the same coin. So I was stunned by my first LDS testimony meeting where people got up and said, “I know.” Not “believe,” not “hope,” not “intuit,” but the ubiquitous phrase: “I know this church to be true. I know that Joseph Smith is the one true prophet. . . .” As I came to know many Latter-day Saints, I began to understand, however, that even their certainty-so foreign and off-putting to me-can be a many-layered, complex response to the Divine.

I think the above is a fair generalization regarding our use of certainty and “I know”, but she also ends with quite a charitable observation of an outsider, one that appreciates the complexities and depth of our culture.

I’d say yes, she did us justice.

If you would like to read the full version, you can download the pdf at the following link:

http://sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/148/148-32-45.pdf
Joe Geisner Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 10:13 AM
I see Helen’s film with hope.If an outsider like Helen can see us, warts and all, and still like us then why do we need to be afraid? I admit that when I knocked on that first door as a nineteen year old kid I was afraid. I figured people would think there was something the matter with me. As time went on, the knocking on doors didn’t bother me. Helen’s film should do that for Mormon’s. It is the first door being knocked on. Elder Jensen, I believe is knocking on the many doors to help us not feel that fear. Thanks to both Elder Jensen for being a positive spiritual leader and Helen for being a great film maker.
anon Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Thanks Rory. Well put.

I liked it. It is a complicated subject.

You cited this portion:

Why should we care? Why in my busy life should I take the time to learn about this strange faith?

This is one way I think about it, necessarily somewhat of an oversimplification:

I guess the church and missionary program of the church has one way of painting the answers to those questions. We’ll call it “white”. Anti-Mormons have another way of painting the answers those questions. We’ll call it “black”. Intellectual-types have another way, we’ll call it “blue”.

For me, the end result was a moderately dark shade of blue – like water on a polluted shoreline. Not enough white for my taste.

I know my viewpoint is entirely subjective (so don’t get uptight, Rick . I guess that is what I am interested in seeing from the comments on this board: what people liked and what they didn’t.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 10:52 AM
pmb, your last paragraph on being truly authentic brought to mind Carl Jung?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s last letter to Miguel Serrano where he speaks of his basic tenet: “Follow that will and that way which experience confirms to be your own, i.e., the true expression of your individuality. As nobody can become aware of his individuality unless he is closely and responsibly related to his fellow beings, he is not withdrawing to an egoistic desert when he tries to find himself. He can only discover himself when he is deeply and unconditionally related to some, and generally related to a great many, individuals with whom he has a chance to compare, and from whom he is able to discriminate himself . . .”
Zelophehad’s Daughters | To Some It Is Given: Knowledge, Doubt, and Mercy Says:
February 29th, 2008 at 7:55 PM
[...] sometimes read in places like Sunstone and FMH that the Mormon claim to knowledge is profoundly illogical, or even smug, self-deluded, and [...]
Bored in Vernal Says:
March 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 AM
I love the new look of the blog, and the new posts that are up. Great writing and great thoughts here.

My daughter went to a huge high school with a graduating class of 1200. She said she discovered the only way to survive was to find a “tribe”–the debaters, the swimmers, the art kids– and to make friends there. After she felt secure, I saw her branch out and meet more and more of the other students. I think there is an important power to belonging to a tribe. It’s also a part of growing up to be able to differentiate from these groups and decide which things are part of the authentic self. (as Eugene’s quote points out.) Thank you for your recommendation of this book. I think it will be of great interest to those who identify with the “Mormon” tribe.
tiredmormon Says:
March 10th, 2008 at 3:10 PM
HELEN,

The documentary was great. Thanks for all your hard work.

Tell these crybabies to stick it.
Paracelsus Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 7:11 PM
I think that regardless of the diatribe and/or rhetoric of Mr. and Mrs.Sunstone or Peter Priesthood and Molly Mormon, this documentary presents an important perspective. A perspective that is just as interesting as Elder Packer’s and Mr. and Mrs. Tanner’s. I frankly find it interesting.

Paracelsus
Rick Jepson Says:
March 11th, 2008 at 11:04 PM
“I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d like to meet the Sunstoner equivalent of Merlin K. Jensen.”

His name is Dan Wotherspoon, and I’m sure he’d be happy to talk to you any time.
Rory Says:
March 16th, 2008 at 5:24 PM
Additional Notes:

Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought published a version of Robert’s paper in Volume 37, Number 3, Fall 2004.

The painting, “Entry into Jerusalem” is by Duccio di Buoninsegna. It is a tempera on wood, created in the first decade of the fourteenth century.

The MP3 has a 10 second blank section at time mark 43:57. Stick with it, it comes back. There is also a short section with some feedback at 25 minutes in, and another during Kathleen’s remarks. They are short.

Finally, for a sample of Bach’s Mass in B Minor referenced in the session, see Magnatune.com. Thanks to Kristine Haglund for pointing me in the direction of this link.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 1:15 PM
Bob Rees’s timely reminder reminded me of an experience two years ago. I attended Good Friday services at the local Christian Church and was deeply moved by their annual solemnity as participants silently brought their lists of sins or burdens, nailed them on the wooden cross lying near the chapel podium and silently left.

From that solemn atmosphere I drove to the local LDS ward to deliver something to a friend attending a local ward function the same evening and vastly different from what I had just left. I was not prepared for the shock I felt to the contemplative state I’d brought with me when I encountered a wedding reception with dancing and merry making. I completed my errand as quickly as possible and left. Even now I cannot express my surprise and dismay and my disappointment at being unable to regain the earlier contemplative state.

I felt sorrow not only for myself, but for those of my culture who seemed generally oblivious to missing the transformational experience shared that day by believing Christians.
anon Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Thanks for sharing your thoughtful analysis. I am mostly Portia – ready and willing – eager – to baptize anyone under any circumstances. I guess we could argue whether this amounts to “blindness” or “destroying” – but, that is an argument that writes itself out to ultimate point of disagreement.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:09 PM
There is a phenomenon of historic proportions taking place world-wide each Monday evening that EXACTLY addresses Stephen’s question in this excellent post.

For those of you not yet tuned in, get ready for a transformative shift in your thinking when you check out the sixth of ten live internet interactive discussions next Monday between Eckhart Tolle and Oprah on Oprah[dot]com at 9 pm ET on Mondays, regarding Tolle’s most recent book “THE NEW EARTH, Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose”. You won’t be the same after you read the book and view these interactive discussions. Two million viewers are shifting their awareness as we speak.
NateHousley Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 1:17 PM
The genius is in Portia’s act of “mercy.” The Christian virtue of mercy is seen to trump the Jewish virtue of justice. But Christianity is supposed to be a blessing to humanity, not to be a superior ideology. How merciful is it actually to rub your superiority in the face of someone who’s been kicked by it his whole life? It’s something Christians, especially those in a dominant culture should think about.
Monte Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I believe that we, as Mormons, should most definately use this week to reflect on the Saviours week leading up to His death on the cross. There is much to be learned there.. Much about forgiveness, humility, sacrifice, and reconciliation. We need to observe this week as sacred and should probably participate in the Lent Fast as well. Sure we fast one Sunday each month, but fasting for fourty days. You know giving up something and focusing on what we need to improve upon in our spirituality would do all of us some good. All these things bring to remembrence the fact that Christ died (Good Friday), and was raised from the dead..We do an alright job with Easter Sunday I guess..More during Holy Week would be great..1Love
Gordon Hill Says:
April 5th, 2008 at 11:33 AM
And exactly what does this have to do with Mormonism?
And when will we be talking about Cordelia in King Lear?
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
April 6th, 2008 at 6:44 AM
Gordon: Do you not see EXACTLY that: “We have been hurt and cry out righteously for vengeance… And then, we…sincerely pleading for goodness, but blindly destroying if we get the chance”, describe egoistic behaviors of both collective and individual Mormonism?
don Says:
April 8th, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Eugene: No, I do not see EXACTLY that. I do not for a moment believe it describes egoistic behaviors of collective and individual Mormonism. I believe such statements are nothing more than intellectual sophistry. Are there those that this DOES describe? Sure. Among all people in all places and all religions & beliefs. However–to ascribe such view to collective Mormonism? Please, enlighten.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
April 10th, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Don, your challenge has activated my ego. Thanks for demonstrating my point and consider my use of EXACTLY as now being eaten by yours truly.

When I saw your comment, I had a gut reaction. But then realized immediately that I was EXACTLY experiencing what Tolle [see my preceding comments of April 3 & 6] described as exemplifying ego behavior. As I disengaged and watched this reaction run its course, it dissolved into a humorous awareness. This then brought peace.

My original boast was in response to my enthusiasm for what I was learning from Eckhart Tolle’s new book “A New Earth”, because of its synchronistic application to an intense family discussion I am having with one of my sons, who has grown up without a Mormon background.

As you point out, Stephen’s original assertion that we all are both “Shylocks” and “Portias” in some way, applies not only to us as individuals and to our Mormon culture, but to humans in general and to all other cultures. Mormonism, individual or collective, has no exclusive claim on egoistic attitudes and behavior. But for you to get defensive about this suggests you might not REALLY want to be enlightened. And does my saying this not give YOU a gut reaction? Gut reactions are NOT intellectual sophistry!
Stephen Godwin Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 7:40 PM
Intellectually stimulating while beggingly lacking of the Spirit adds up to just another person talking about Mormonism.
Andrew Hardwick Says:
April 17th, 2008 at 4:55 AM
Sure, why not adopt the cross or pray the rosary? I grew up with all that stuff. All the so called Christian piety that most of Christendom engagesc in the week before Easter is a farce! Better than trying to be like the so called “Christians”, why not celebrate Passover as commanded in the Bible. The first Christians celebrated as was their cusdtom since most were Jewish-Christians. It was the Pagan Constantine who in an effort to get away from Jewish customs encouraged Christians to celebrate the events recalling the crucifixion and resurrection on a Sunday (named after a Pagan goddess). Instead of rushing ot embrace the pagan practices of Christendom (read the Great Apostasy0 let us go back to scripture and live as the first Christians did following the directives of scripture not popular customs.
Valerie Hoyle Says:
April 20th, 2008 at 5:38 PM
I am neither a Shylock nor a Portia..I could cry out for vengeance..BUT how destructive is that?
What delicious words Shakespeare shares with us and what beautiful costumes and scenery are presented in this play? AND .. you couldn’t show this film to your class because there were prostitutes in it? I cringe at the thought.. of my 9 & 11 year old grandchildren in a class where the teacher banned the play.. the younger just finished studying MacBeth and enjoyed all the gory details…
Rob Lauer Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 7:42 AM
I’m so grateful for Helen’s tremendous work. I think the documentary WAS fair and objective–and accurate. As a gay Reform Mormon, I welcome this film, and hope that it will open the door for other documentary film makers to explore the Mormon present (not just LDS, but Community of Christ, FLDS, polygamists, New Order Mormons, Reform Mormons, etc.) and–perhaps more importantly–the Mormon PAST.

Mormon history is American history. Next to the Civil War, I think the Mormon story is the most important story of 19th century American history. The nation’s response to Mormonism and polygamy resulted in a new interpretation of the First Amendment.(One could make the case that the 19th century American response to Mormonism more or less killed the original intent of the First Amendment.)

Because of this the Mormon story belongs equally to ALL Americans. LDS Church officials and LDS Church members do not have sole claim to Mormonism; nor do they have final say on what Mormonism is and isn’t.

In the coming decades the diversification of Mormons will continue. In the centuries to come the LDS institution and its Priesthood leaders will no more speak for ALL Mormons any more than the Catholic Church speaks for all Christians.

Thank you, Helen! I hope your film in but the first in a long line of high quality, objective explorations of my religious heritage and tradiiton.
Rick Jepson Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 5:03 PM
If only there was some fair balance to all this high-minded, intellectual, “blue” discussion of Mormonism so obviously devoid of the true spirit.

I think the church should consider publishing it’s own monthly magazine or maybe even having a semi-annual conference. Then underrepresented folks like B.K.Packer would finally have a voice within Mormonism.

: )
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
May 11th, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Rob, well said!!

As mentioned elsewhere a year ago when this film first screened on national PBS, I believe its greatest value will be seen historically in its having initiated what had been missing in all versions of Mormon society and culture from its historical beginnings, namely “glasnost” [or *openness*]. But Helen’s film illustrates a different kind of “glasnost” from the Soviet version: that is, it is a creative and assertive move inspired by *grass roots* levels. In contrast, the Soviet version was imposed from its new (KGB trained) top leadership, whereas I doubt that Soviet grass roots had much to do with it at all. It took the initiative of a visionary who had access to the real facts confronting his society and country. He and his colleagues were thus forced to design a new strategy to deal with an accurate assessment of the world condition. The result was virtually a bloodless revolution.

May our Mormon culture and its various societies be so fortunate as to experience such a long overdue transformation.

Eugene Kovalenko
Kevin Says:
May 26th, 2008 at 10:18 PM
A reply about Nick Literskis’ column: A married (to the opposite sex) Mormon man who claims to be Gay isn’t really Gay at all, more than likely, these men are Bisexual. Homosexuality and Bisexuality are two different things.A true homosexual man could not possibly ever marry a woman, even out of ardent religious belief and stick with it, let alone for eternity. Not only that, but I don’t think there are a whole lot of women out there who would be willing to tolerate the sexual exploits of a Bisexual husband, with her full knowledge. Something (in the relationship)would have to give sooner or later. Also, the Church would consider marriages such as these to contain an element of well, adultery.
tasithoughts Says:
May 29th, 2008 at 11:41 PM
When I joined the LDS Church and converted from Catholicism one of the perks to me was leaving all the traditions surrounding the traditional Holy Week observances. I appreciated the LDS viewpoint that incorporated the meaning of the events of those days into every day lives. I am not an acitve member but I believe all that pomp around these “holy days” actually take away from the spiritual benefit that can be gained.
kia kaha Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 PM
awesome article Helen i’ve never even seen the series but am now seeking it out,i wished our paths would have meet i’m absolutely sure you would have been real interested in my story

kia ora to Sunstone i’ve juz stumbled across your website and never heard of you guys b4 i really enjoy everything i’ve read so far.For me its like being in Sunday school but heaps heaps better more openess and objectiveness not the same old preprogrammed one size fits all know all i have the ANSWER listen to me follow me i’m of a higher intellect than you void of feeling M..F….. ROBOTS(bring it on you thin skinned cry babies)

Hey Sunstone bros sis if the BoM is about 2 great nations of peoples,Nephites and Lamanites,then a third and larger GROUP of peoples has evolved in this the last dispensation even the FOOLness of times,and those my FRIENDS i call the ME-PHITES.For they are constantly focused on the I and not the WE,the ME not the US the one not the whole

peace out Sunstoners ka kite ano tihei Mauri ora

kia kaha
kia kaha Says:
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 PM
thats funny bro
kia kaha Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:43 AM
mine is only a question as i try to gain a better understanding of the posted comments,does any of those who have posted,experience peace,joy and even fulfillment on a whole as part of your daily going ons,from living b y the commandments and striving to have the companionship of the HG?

MY QUESTION IS SINCERE AND GENUINE,i am not seeking to provoke ill feelings,neither am i nieve or ignorant to the complexities of life in or out of the church.
Stephen Carter Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 AM
Hi Kia,

Let’s say the answer is yes. How does that influence how you interpret our posted comments?
kia kaha Says:
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 AM
kia ora Stephen

kudos for the reply bro,however you seem uncertain bout or at the very least apprehensive to committing to a straight answer,but anyway to go along with your hyperthetical “yes” i can only say that it prompts yet more questions like why?why arent those experiences shared and explored in commentary?,just to state the obvious,keep in mind this further observation is only hyperthetical.
Shelly M. Says:
June 29th, 2008 at 9:23 PM
I have many gay friends, associates and family members in my life. I have loved them as equal to all other human beings. However, my love for the Savior and the need to protect His gospel causes me much reflection as to “where to draw the line” in terms of supporting things that are not a part of His gospel.

He has a prophet on the earth for exactly this – to provide clarity. The Proclamation to the Family gently reminds us that gender is essential to our eternal progression. You are right, it probably will have no affect on heterosexual marriages, but it will have an effect on those individuals who want to continue their pursuit that is contrary to the Lord’s plan for us.

I think we can continue to show love, compassion and understanding without granting them the title of marriage. That is a title given by the Lord. It is not ours to re-define. A true follower of Christ will administer to those in pain, but will not undermine His gospel while doing it.
Dave Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 7:49 AM
I sympathize with your sense of frustration, Matt, but I don’t see a visit with the bishop along the lines you have outlined as a good idea. He won’t pass any of your information up the line and you won’t change anyone’s mind. The only predictable result is that it will make your wife upset.

If make an appointment you must, a better approach would be to share your concern that having a different opinion on this political issue will make you unwelcome in the ward. Then instead of having to defend the LDS position, the bishop can emphasize LDS neutrality, confirm that you don’t have to participate in any LDS-sponsored political activities if you don’t want to, and remind you how much he appreciates having you as an active and attending member of the ward. Your wife will be happier and the bishop will learn that the letter and campaign may be sending the wrong message to some members. Much better outcome.
adcama Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 8:05 AM
Matt – thank you for your thoughtful post. I am with you 100% on this issue. I have no dog in the fight, but I feel so strongly about this issue. I have found myself wanting to do something – anything – but I don’t quite know what to do. I think your plan is a good one. I would add one additional item to your care package. My wife and I happened upon a PBS program last week titled “Anyone and Everyone” (http://www.anyoneandeveryone.com/). The film describes the process of an LDS family (and families of different religious faiths) as they discover someone they love is gay. I was moved almost to tears….especially with the compassion shown by the LDS parents….and the articulate way in which they describe their position. The LDS parents are still LDS, still republican….but are firmly against the church on this matter. It was so good, I ordered a copy of the DVD for several people I know who think I am a heretic. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend it.
LRC Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 8:27 AM
I have to disagree with Dave at least in part. From personal experience meeting with local leaders, alerting them to the existence of ideas other than orthodox can be helpful.

In this week’s example, I voiced my concern about this letter to my local leaders, and as a result, when the letter was read and discussed in our ward, it was done with an admonition to show compassion to all. Not only that, the bishop thanked me profusely for giving him some books on the subject which opened his eyes and heart to a different point of view than what he previously held.

Since church attendance happens at the local level, local leaders are the ones with the power to make a difference in weekly church life for their ward/branch/stake members. The information I shared with my bishop (and SP) may not go up the line, but one, at least, has promised it will go down the line, and it has already begun to set a tone in our local meetings. Certainly, if they are “more enlightened” on the subject, they’ll hopefully have the integrity to stand up and speak out to their “file leaders” as well.

Personally, I wish the letter had never been written or read, but since I can’t control that, I can have some comfort in knowing that overt hate speech will not be tolerated or tacitly approved in my ward. If nothing else, I’ve changed one gung-ho, march-on-the-enemy attitude to one that first considers compassion, patience and concern for individual circumstances.

Changing an attitude is not completely changing a mind, but every little bit helps.
Mary Ellen Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Great post, Matt. Compassion with action is a great gospel-based approach.

In 2000, I wrote letters to my stake and ward leaders outlining my position on Prop 22 and the church’s political action in California. From the conversations that resulted, it was clear that church leaders’ opinions on the issue ran the gamut; I was both praised and condemned for voicing my opinion.

Although there’s room for differing opinions on one’s approach to the issue, the Savior’s call for me to love my neighbor is unequivocal. Anything that runs counter to that–whatever the source–is not my path.

How about adding some women’s voices to your Gay Care Package? There are some here: http://www.affirmation.org/voices/women.shtml
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 9:13 AM
Shelly M., I appreciate your thoughtful response.

Although I wish we’d change our policy/doctrine on gays, I’m more bothered by the fact that we are imposing our beliefs on others. God may have told you one thing, but he has told others something else.

I repectfully recognize the right of: Evangelical Christians to reject evolution; Jehovah’s Witnesses to reject blood transfusions; Muslims to dictate what women should wear in public, and so on… but I’d be offended if any of those groups were successful in getting legislation passed that resulted in: my children being taught only Creationism at school; my family not being able to receive (or give) blood; my wife being forced to cover her body from head to toe.

We have to share this planet with other believers, and it is bigoted to force our beliefs on others. Staying out of the fight is not the same as throwing the Proclamation on the Family on the ash heap.
DoubleL Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I had a temple recommend interview this week and when they asked if I agreed with groups that went against our beliefs everything in me was screaming to say something, to protest the church’s involvement, but I just said no. Now I feel guilt about saying no and anger (still) that the church is involved. Rock and a hard place.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Dave, I have no illusions that my “care package” will be passed up the line, or that I will change anyone’s mind. Neither is an intention or goal.

My primary goal is to give my bishop some good resources that might be of help (I’m guessing his information/resources are pretty limited), and at the same time to get a few things off my chest, assuage some guilt, etc.

My second goal is probably a little self-serving, but so be it. Furthermore, as LRC suggests, meeting with local leaders to discuss alternative ideas has always been a positive experience for me.

But I guess such a meeting and exchange of ideas is very “bishop dependent.” I’m lucky I guess because I have a great bishop. He is roughly my age. We have played sports together, discussed business ideas, and even double-dated. He has accompanied me to Miller-Eccles, and we have discussed tough issues like Blacks/Priesthood. He has sought my advice on other tough issues (i.e. relationship between Masonry & Mormonism).

He’s a bright guy — Harvard educated — but more important, truly embodies the Christlike ideals of love, kindness, and charity. I expect we’ll have a thoughtful, even spiritual discussion. I’m sure I won’t change his mind, and he won’t change my mind, but I think we’ll both feel closer and better off for having had the conversation… and who knows if one of these books or articles won’t help someone someday.
Stephen Carter Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 10:44 AM
In 2006 a similar letter was passed around, urging us to write to our representatives to voice our opinion about a proposed constitutional amendment on marriage. And being the obedient guy I am, I did.

May 30, 2006

Sen. Murkowski,

You’ve probably gotten a lot of emails from Mormons in Alaska urging you to vote for the proposed Constitutional amendment on marriage.

Well, I’m a Mormon and I don’t think the amendment will do the country much good.

It’s strange that the Mormons would want to pass this amendment. A little more than a hundred years ago, they were living their own alternative form of marriage, and the United States government made life pretty miserable for them, thus alienating a group of hard-working people with a fierce sense of loyalty. I think we, as Mormons, should have a little more empathy for others who are experimenting. And I think the government can learn a lesson from those old conflicts with the Mormons.

From a religious standpoint, it seems to me that Jesus advocated taking down barriers and facilitating conversation between different people. Not putting up walls and preemptively ending the hopes of communication.

From a political standpoint, I think voting for the amendment will only alienate a large group of potentially stable, constructive citizens who want to contribute to society, just as the virulent anti-polygamy sentiment in the United States alienated the Mormons.

Please, leave this issue open. The discourse on this subject hasn’t reached a place where ending the conversation would be productive. There is still too much to talk about.
Shelly M. Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Matt you are twisting ideologies to fit your platform.

1. Standing up for something you believe in does not make someone bigoted. That term is thrown around for groups who somehow want you to feel guilty and change your stance. Believing in marriage as a sacred religious title between heterosexual couples does not make me bigoted.

2. We have a right as a people to VOTE on whether we want to re-define marriage. Once you open the door for homosexuals, you MUST open it for other alternative forms of marriage. To say otherwise would be pure hypocrisy.

3. My strongest feeling is that marriage is a title from God. It is not ours to re-define. You have your compassion misplaced. No we are not causing hurt and damage denying others something that is not theirs. I tell my teenagers everyday NO to things they are not entitled to. Giving into everything they demand is not good for them.

3. Because my belief is based on religious principles does not make me any less valuable as a voter. We all have an origin for our beliefs. I choose to follow the prophet’s admonition that gender is essential our divine potential, therefore, children are entitled to a mother and a father. I will not push that on you anymore than you can push your views on me. That is what the voting booth is for regardless of what God has told anyone.

4. The church is only encouraging individuals to become politically active. Every year there is something read from the pulpit, this one is just gaining more scrutiny. Interestingly enough, other religions have been fighting just a heavily and tenaciously and yet, the Mormons are the only ones being attacked over it.

5. Things are passed every day in our courts and at the polls that I do not agree with and are in conflict with my religion, however, I don’t go around screaming “don’t push your beliefs on me”. Instead, I teach my children otherwise and learn to live peacefully. I believe we do need to make concession to co-habitate as citizens, but I will always make sure my voice is heard at the polls. I will win some, and I will lose some.
Gerald Smith Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 12:18 PM
I think you are looking at the issue sideways. You are looking for ways to support a political stance: gay marriage. This is very different from showing an active compassion. We as LDS can reach out to those with issues that differ from commandments, but that does not mean the Church should or will adopt those weaknesses. Why don’t we allow the occasional drinker to have a temple recommend? Because in the Church, WoW and chastity issues tend to be all or nothing.
It is okay to have homosexual attractions and attend the temple, just as it is okay to be attracted to alcohol and attend. Indulging in practices that are contrary to commandments is another thing.
To believe in an issue that goes contrary to the Family Proclamation, which is very much a core doctrine in the Church, is to not consider the idea that the Brethren have received such guidance from the Lord. You make it sound like they are just rejecting it out of custom/tradition.
It comes down to one key issue:
Have the Brethren been inspired in issuing the Family Proclamation and their letter to wards?

If yes, then we become sheep by following that counsel as a test of our faithfulness. Yet, we can still show compassion and kindness to gay people.

If they are not inspired, then we need to stand up for what is true and correct, which probably means we need to seek another religion, because then we are looking at potentially fallen prophets.

Given that homosexuality has been disapproved since OT times, I’d say this is an issue that will not change. While I have compassion for people with such same sex attraction, I see it on the same level as any addiction/attraction. They can be managed and dealt with if we have a strong enough testimony of living prophets.
tesseract Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I came to Church wearing a rainbow ribbon. I don’t know if anybody noticed or not. When they read the letter, I didn’t notice any nods, a few squirms maybe. I was planning on walking out, but I felt prompted not to. During the sacrament, I pleaded with my HF to ensure that if there were any gay people in the ward that they would feel loved and that they would feel like there was a place for them.

I was pleasantly surprised when two of the talks were about “Caring for/Seeking for/Encircling the One”. I can’t quite remember the correct phase, but they were two excellent talks about how some members leave the church because they feel different or because they feel there is no place for them, and how important it is to search for the one lost sheep. I felt the spirit so strongly, and I felt really good that I had come to church and that I had not walked out.

I like your idea of talking to the bishop and sharing resources. I would like to do that. I alsoam planning on wearing my rainbow ribbon to church every Sunday until November. My hopes is that people might talk to me privately (who either share or don’t share similar viewpoints) and maybe some healthy dialog can ensue. Is the ribbon disrespectful in any way? I do not want to be disrespectful or distract from the spirit. I felt like it was the most respectful, non-intrusive thing I could do.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Shelly M., thanks again for another thoughtful response! My thoughts on your five points:

1.) You are right — “Believing in marriage as a sacred religious title between heterosexual couples does not make me bigoted” — but I didn’t say that.

There is a difference between “believing” something, and denying others the same or equal rights because of those beliefs. The church once supported anti-miscegenation laws that banned interracial marriage. That too was bigoted. What is the difference? The issue is equal rights, not personal beliefs.

As with the Word of Wisdom, we can believe and teach abstinence from alcohol, but we don’t have to force others to live by the same standard.

2.) “Once you open the door for homosexuals, you MUST open it for other alternative forms of marriage. To say otherwise would be pure hypocrisy.”

That simply doesn’t make sense. That is like anti-marijuana lobbyists arguing that once you open the door for marijuana, you HAVE to also legalize meth, heroin, etc.

No, each case for marriage must be judged based on its own criteria. If gays are allowed to marry, should a man also be allowed to marry a 10 year old child, or an animal? No, because the rights and/or mental capacity of the child or animal are not taken into consideration.

Polygamy involves consenting adults, but there are perfectly valid legal reasons why marriage could or should be defined between two people, and not more.

3.) No argument about your right to believe and/or vote per the dictates of your conscience. No argument about the church preaching its beliefs, or teaching re the importance of voting. But they shouldn’t take an active/public role in advocating and lobbying for one position or another. If it does, then I think relgion in general has crossed the separation-of-church-and-state line, and we should reconsider its tax-exempt status.

4.) “other religions have been fighting just a heavily and tenaciously and yet, the Mormons are the only ones being attacked over it.”

I don’t see Mormons being singled out. In any case, I find it ironic that we are joining a “coalition” of churches — let’s face it, primarily evangelical or born-again christian churches — that recently proved themselves to be bigoted against the Mormons in their dealings with Romney’s presidential candidacy. But with Romney out of the picture, I’m sure they’ll now gladly welcome us back to their fox hole to fight side-by-side against gay marriage.

5.) “however, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t go around screaming ‘don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t push your beliefs on me’.”

You would, and so would I, if they were denying you some basic rights.

“Instead, I teach my children otherwise and learn to live peacefully.”

Exactly!!
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Gerald (#11), all good points. I believe you and all Mormons when they talk of the importance of extending compassion and kindness to gays or those that feel same-sex attraction. I’m not rejecting such as empty rhetoric.

But this is your key sentance:

“We as LDS can reach out to those with issues that differ from commandments, but that does not mean the Church should or will adopt those weaknesses.”

I’m not really saying the Church should adopt Gay Marriage, but that it should allow Society to adopt Gay Marriage. My post is less about forcing the church to change its doctrine/policy, and more about the church crossing the line to compel its beliefs on others.

So yeah, I’d be very happy if the church one day changed its doctrine to make room for gays, but for now I’d be content if they let other religious (and non-religious) belivers enjoy the same rights to marriage that Mormons enjoy.

Switching gears to something else you said…

“Have the Brethren been inspired in issuing the Family Proclamation and their letter to wards? If they are not inspired… then we are looking at potentially fallen prophets.”

Looking at prophets as “inspired” or “fallen” is a false (and dangerous) dichotomy. We are all — prophets included — inspired and fallen. Parsing the difference is the purpose of life, isn’t it? I think we learn and grow more by such an exercise, than by simply “following the prophet.”
Shelly M. Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Once again, you twist it to “fit”.

Here’s a scripture for you to ponder:

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves…
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

After reading your post to Gerald, I am believing that you are posing as a Mormon as you are in contradiction to that which we hold sacred, believing in continuing revelation.

We aren’t discussing something that is not mentioned in the Bible as a sin. We cannot support gay marriage and say we believe in God’s word. It’s that simple. Stop twisting it with misplaced compassion and political double speak.
Mark IV Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Matt, actually, I think your visit with the bishop does have a good chance of bearing fruit, eventually. I think it is a very good idea, and I wish you well.
Mary Ellen Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 4:17 PM
#14 Shelly M said:

We cannot support gay marriage and say we believe in God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s word. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s that simple.

I respectfully disagree with both of these statements. The first denies that it is possible for God to reveal a personal path that differes from the generalized pronouncements of the church. Personally, I am not comfortable placing those kinds of limits on an infinite, divine being. Nor do I believe that supporting gay marriage is incompatible with following God’s word as we each understand it or with Christian beliefs in general. John Shelby Spong has an interesting take on the issue in his book, Living in Sin?: A Bishop Rethinks Human Sexuality.

I also disagree that this issue or the various approaches to it–legal, personal, or theological–are simple. In my experience, it’s anything but. There’s also plenty of room for you to feel differently.
MoHoHawaii Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 4:58 PM
God bless you, Matt.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Thanks for the link, adcama (#3). I watched the trailer for Anyone and Everyone and it looks wonderful. How many of the stories feature Mormons?

Nice thoughts, Mary Ellen. I agree I need some women’s voices in my care package. I’ll peruse the link and try to find some.

Well-written as usual, Stephen (#9). As I’ve said many times, “You have the gift!”

Thanks Mark IV. Maybe I’ll follow up with a comment after I meet with my bishop. I always enjoy your comments around the bloggernacle, especially at BCC.

MoHoHawaii (#17), enjoyed reading through your blog. That video “A Horror Story for June” is just a shocker. I really hope that was a unique case, (or at worst, a unique period of time), and that kind of thing doesn’t happen today.

Shelly (#15), I’ve enjoyed the back-and-forth with you, but it seems that our conversation has probably run its course. Suffice it to say that I consider myself Mormon, especially because I so ardently cherish the twin Mormon concepts of: 1.) Free agency, and 2.) Ongoing, personal revelation.

Embracing such concepts sometimes might put my beliefs and opinions at odds with the church and its prophets, but in my heart that makes me more Mormon, not less Mormon.
adcama Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 6:28 PM
The program profiles a number of families, as I recall only one of the families is LDS. The other families are Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, etc. The story of the LDS family, as well as stories of families from other faiths, are told in phases – by rotating interviews as each family comes to terms with their loved one. It’s really well done….and the LDS family represents charity in an incredible, articulate way.
Eugene Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Matt, my wife asks: How do you mean “that committed gay marriage is…possibly even a boon to traditional heterosexual marriage”? In what way can it be a “boon”?
Joe Geisner Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Matt,

I really don’t have any answers to your questions. I would like to say that I think you did a great thing when you spoke with Jennifer and shared your feelings about the letter and your confusion on why the church has gotten involved to this extent.

I will be curious what happens in Southern California since it is quite conservative compared to us Northern Californians. My wife and I have attended church very little since Prop 22 and I refuse to give any money to the church for their political stance on this issue. My guess is that there will be little pressure and little political involvement by most members here in the north. Those who were very political last time in support for Prop. 22 have all moved to Utah (thank goodness) so I will be surprised if my own ward does much. Please keep us up-to-date about what is happening in SoCal. I know you father was very involved in support of Prop. 22, has he made public his stance this time?
Joe Geisner Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Eugene,

I don’t think this is what you are asking. But I know for us NoCal’s the legalization of same sex marriage has and will bring in tens of millions of dollars to the Bay Area. So, yes it sure helps us heterosexual marrieds by bringing in all that revenue, specially since we are looking at a eleven billion dollar deficit for our state budget.

My guess is that Matt meant that stability in families is always good for society. When ninety plus percent of the children who grow up in same sex families are heterosexual and can marry in any state it seems to me that we would want these children to grow up in stable and committed homes as their example.
Ann Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Wonderful post, Matt. For your bishop’s own enjoyment, you might want to recommend Carol Lynn Pearson’s “No More Goodbyes.”

Yesterday during sacrament meeting when I should have been listening to stories about girl’s camp, I read Galatians instead. Then last night on BCC I read a post about encouraging political action without getting into politics. I thought of the scripture I’d just read earlier that morning:

And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

I understand that the only specific course of action Peter, James and John gave to Paul as he was about to resume his ministry was to remember the poor. I considered this in light of Jesus’s comment that we will always have the poor with us. This lines up most excellently with the call to action Menlove gives and that you echo here. We will have the poor with us always – yet we should work to help the poor.

Your actions may not have any noticeable effect, but they will affect you, because you will have acted. If you feel called to act, then you should.
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 8:21 PM
Eugene, Joe’s got the right idea.

Why do we encourage our young men and women to marry? There are myriad reasons, but the basic premise is that the benefits of marriage and a committed relationship ostensibly outweigh the benefits of living alone, both for the individual self and for the community.

When we marginalize people, when we tell them they are wicked, evil, somehow “less than”, especially if they internalize these feelings as children and teens, the result is often self-loathing, self-contempt, etc. For gays, this sometimes means acting out, destructive promiscuity, creating a vicious sin/shame spiral. We should be encouraging them to form stable, lasting unions.

Instead of denying them membership to the club, we should be welcoming them with open arms.

“Marriage” as an institution would be infinitely better off if we held it as the ideal or goal for all people, not just heterosexuals.

Finally, if we were to take a poll of all gays, I think we’d find a strong correlation between each individuals degree of happiness, self-worth, and self-esteem and the kind of environment he or she was raised in — from open, loving, and accepting, on one end of the spectrum, to closed, shameful, and judgemental on the other. Unfortunately, I think we’d also find that a high percentage of the closed, shameful, and judgemental environments were also highly religious environments.

I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument for the negative things that would happen to society if we allowed gays to marry… well, except for this one, which I just saw at MoHoHawaii’s blog. Hilarious!
Matt Thurston Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Thanks, Joe (#22). Unfortunately, most of my interview with Jennifer Dobner of the AP was left on the cutting room floor. What did make the article seems a little random and out of context. Oh well.

As for my father, he can speak for himself. I’ll just say that I don’t know if he supported Prop 22 in 2000 or not, but I don’t think he’d mind if I said that he is now supportive of Gay Marriage (and has been for awhile, as far as I know) and against the current proposition (Prop 8, by the way). He said as much recently in a public forum of mostly Mormons.
Joe Geisner Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 8:52 PM
Matt,

I apologize. I confused your Dad with Russ Frandsen, all you SoCal people look alike.:-)
Your Dad sounds like a wonderful person.

I am serious, I would like to hear what your take is on the church involvement in SoCal as time passes and if I hear anything about what happens up here I will let the blog know.
Frankie Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Hi all. I’m Frankie. I’m 26. I’m a gay Mormon. My partner Tripp and I are enjoying our fifth year together. Sometimes I worry that we all get caught up in the bigness of these issues and forget that there are individuals behind the opinions on both sides of the debate. We’re so busy insisting on what we believe that we sometimes forget that each one of us believes what he or she believes for specific, experiential reasons. We all have stories. I’d like to encourage us to share them.

Tripp is my soul mate, my best friend, and my life?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s love. We want to start a family. We are committed to being excellent fathers. In our city, there are thousands of children currently growing up without any parents at all. Older children and teenagers, especially, often slip through the system without ever finding a permanent placement. Tripp and I want to help these children because we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re concerned for them and for our society as a whole. We believe that the best way we can help them is to adopt them and to form a permanent family. Like you, we believe in the institution of marriage and how important it is for children to have married parents. This is why we want to get married.

That’s it. We don’t want to change the definition of marriage. We just want a family that is supported by this amazing institution.

It saddens me that many people feel they need to defend marriage from Tripp and I. I don’t feel like a threat. I feel like marriage’s biggest advocate. I LOVE marriage and all that it stands for.

To all those who are working to ban gay marriage in California, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d like to offer myself as a friend and an ally. No, I don’t want to ban gay marriage. But I do want to protect marriage and families. I think that family is the most important thing any of us can have. That’s why I’m working so hard to build one with Tripp. You and I may have different short term goals, but I really do believe we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re all vying for the same thing in the end. I hope that like all allies we can keep the doors of communication open throughout the summer and deep into our combined futures.
Brad Says:
June 30th, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Matt,
My sense is that there are still many (perhaps most?) Mormons who are not aware or sensitive to the difficult path of gay members, especially those who desire to remain active. I am especially troubled by the potential estrangement of youth who may be recognizing their own sexual orientation as being outside of what the church considers acceptable. In this case, the church being the local church where homosexuality may be spoken of with fear, prejudice, and an inordinate amount of condemnation.

I think an important component of “Compassion in Action” is the willingness to stand up and say something that affirms compassion and understanding. Perhaps as a Church we can eventually talk about homosexuality in a compassionate manner without always prefacing it with how much God loathes the practice. I hear way too much Us vs. Them (the world, gays, wicked judges, false religions, etc. etc.) in my So Cal ward.
Suzanne Neilsen Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 11:38 AM
Same sex marriage was a boon to heterosexual marriage. Read a kinda interesting book, Between Women by Sharon Marcus. She looks at victorian woman in England, and in part of the book(ok the chapters I enjoyed) and shows that woman in same sex marriages influenced the reformation of marriage law. So when you start singing the praises of your marriage, be sure to thank 19th century lesbians.
Michael Ejercito Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 3:36 PM
?¢Ç¨?ìOnce you open the door for homosexuals, you MUST open it for other alternative forms of marriage. To say otherwise would be pure hypocrisy.?¢Ç¨¬ù
That depends on how the door for homosexuals was opened.

If it was opened by a decree from an autocrat, a bill from a legislature, or an initiative from the voters, then the door does not have to be opened for other alternatives at all . It all depends on the whims of those who make the law.

Court decisions are another matter. Courts rely on reasoning and precedent and the laws. A future court may use a court ruling to justify opening the door for other forms of marriage.
Michael Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Terrific post, Matt. I hope it goes well with your bishop friend. I second the suggestion to give a copy of Carol Lynn Pearson’s book. It is compassionate and helps to put a human face on the issues. Too often, attitudes don’t change until we see that they are real people rather than abstractions.
Shelly M. Says:
July 1st, 2008 at 9:12 PM
Keep twisting…
Matt Thurston Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:12 AM
Frankie (#28), Thank you for sharing your story. I believe it will be personal stories like yours that ultimately turn the tide for Gays in the church. We are a storytelling people. It is sometimes said that Mormons don’t have a theology, instead Mormons have “history”. And history is story. Mormon testimony seems to come from the personal stories we tell each other. The First Vision was the original “personal story.” And every Fast Sunday we take turns telling our own personal stories.

Based on their comments, it sounds like Brad (#29) and Michael (#32) would agree.

Shelly M., Twisting? On the contrary, “I glory in plainness” (2 Nephi 33:6)
Eugene Says:
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 PM
Joe #23: I like your guess in interpreting Matt #25 “…stability in families is always good for society.” I wholeheartedly agree, whether that stability is in heterosexual, gay or polygamous families.

Would you go that far, Matt? You can hardly confess to “impotence” now, after 35 lively and interesting responses to your compassionate action in positioning yourself atop the wall to take on these slings and arrows. I’m proud of you and this great exchange!
diehardmoderate Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:22 AM
I appreciated the open-hearted posting by Frankie about his life with Tripp, and the many conscientious thoughts from Shelly M. and Eugene.

I’ve read the letter from Church headquarters dated 6/20/08 that Matt references in his original post, and for me the crux of my concern is the balance of power between the sovereignty of the CA voters versus the will/veto power of the CA Supreme Court.

Lately I’ve been feeling like a lot of the Positive Productive Intellectualism that often resides in this community, in several other neo-Liberal secular forums, and that lurks on the periphery of many local LDS units is (unfortunately) increasingly politically impotent compared to the louder, better connected, better funded, higher-profile special interests groups who live at the political extremes.

I feel like these extreme ideologues with their funding and networks are the ones who are steering much of the information dissemination on this and other hot political issues. And I’m beginning to feel like my priority as a Christian intellectual is to resist the propaganda generated and distributed by either far-left or far-right extreme.

For me, the pressing issues surrounding same-sex legislation is more about “doing no harm” than about who is more or less cosmically justified under God or rhetorically validated by Biblical text.

For me, my stance on any particular same-sex legislation has all to do with the fine print attached to the actual bill/proposition at hand, and often the fine print of any law develops over time and can’t be foreseen or controlled by directly by the voters down the road.

From the 6/20 letter, it also feels like the First Pres is concerned with/against readjusting the legal term of “marriage” to include non-heterosexual partnerships. From that document, I don’t get the clear feeling that our church’s offical stance is associated with denying same-sex couples the legal benefits that come with being legally married. It seems like the ideological revision against the will of the CA voters as reflected in the 2000 vote is the Church’s main concern.

My bottom line for the moment:
I think we need legislation that takes this whole issue outside the booby-trapped box that we’re all thrashing around in. We need to rethink the needs of the America people– gay and straight alike– and figure out legal terminology and public policy that fits the current needs and reaches for more harmony and less harm.
Ryan Jentzsch Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:02 PM
Here’s what is plain:

A living prophet has said “The teaching and positions on this moral issue are unequivocal.”

Matt, it seems that you strongly disagree, and to assert your position you try to twist what was read from the pulpit as some type of gay-hate literature implying that this somehow harms gay men and women.

Christ showed the ultimate example on how to handle this situation when he was presented with the adulterous woman; when her accusers had all left due to their own guilt (unable to ‘cast the first stone’); Christ said to the woman: “Go thy way and sin no more.” He didn’t say “Committing adultery is no longer a tenet of my religion, so go thy way, it is no longer a sin.”

I have thought of this story and put a gay man in the position of the adulterous woman — It provides a Christlike perspective on the gay issue or any issue that is a sin in the eyes of God.

Matt, you asked the question:
“So how can an Active Mormon who values his or her membership in the church, but who also supports the rights of gays to marry, show compassion with action?”

My answer is this: By your example teach people in your ward and in the world to hate the sin and love the sinner.

Your going to your bishop and sharing your concerns and giving him materials to help gay members of his ward is a good thing, and I think perhaps the beginning of the answer to your own question.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Thanks, Eugene (#35). Are you going to the Symposium this year?

diehardmoderate (#36), I think you make some good, moderate points. But I think the church is a little more than just worried about “ideological revision,” don’t you think? I think they see any official sanction of gay unions, whether such a union is called “marriage” or not, as detrimental to our society, period.

Ryan (#37), If only life were so simple that God always passed along his word and will unfettered to his one true and living Prophet, and all of the earth’s inhabitants could drink from this fountain of pure knowledge like my wife drinks from the teat of the Coca-Cola corporation.

Alas, life is not so simple. Very few of the earth’s inhabitants are as confident as you are in the unequivocal advice of the living prophet. Many of these people also communicate with God, and God has told them something else.

And even many of those who recognize and accept him as a prophet, myself included, do so with a broader and nuanced understanding of prophetic . Mormon History is replete with examples of prophets saying something unequivocal, that turned out to not be so unequivocal. And the shifting nature or definition of “sin” has an equally colorful track record.

Ultimately though, this is about personal revelation and conscience. So as someone else recently said, “I guess my feeling is that if we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re always supposed to agree with what our leaders say, what?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s the point of having personal revelation?”
Eugene Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 PM
Matt #38: Symposium? Yes; am presenting a paper asking: “Did Joseph Smith know himself?” responding to Harold Bloom’s last question in his March 2007 Sunstone essay. It will consider Jung’s concept of the “shadow” applied not only to Joseph, but also to “The people of the Book” in today’s broadband Mormon culture and society. You are welcome to come and hold my feet to the fire!
anon - Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 4:07 PM
What part of being an Active Mormon don’t you understand? The bretheren have spoken on this issue and if you believe they are led by God, and desire to follow God, you should fall in line.

I know it might seem fun to sit around and think of all the intellectual/theological gray zones and/or otherwise take exception to or otherwise subvert their clear directives. It might seem especially fun to espouse a seemingly compassionate viewpoint at the expense of complete allegiance to church declarations to impress friends and neighbors. I am not accusing you of that – I am just saying I’ve played devils advocate with my friends who either act or are unquestioningly obedient (add tons of adjs: philosophically illiterate, conservative, republican, byu(ish), straight, white, wealthy, etc. etc.)

But at some point, don’t you just have to say you are ON or OFF the bus? With them or against them?

I’ve probably wasted a year of my life living and dying over the apparent social, theological, and historical complexities of the church– marveling that the church may not be exactly what it claims to be– relishing in those spaces between faith and skepticism– being neither cold nor hot, (or perhaps both cold and hot for a net lukewarm) in my allegiance to the LDS Church. But from my experience, it is no wonder that this condition is equated with vomit: it implies one has attempted to eat and digest something that one’s body can’t use.

In small a way, I guess I respect people who have bailed on the church over this issue because they understand something that you apparently don’t: you cannot truly, in the final analysis, be, as you say, “An Active Mormon who supports gay rights.”

If you’ve made it this far, I do have a non-rhetorical (though hypothetical) question for anyone who cares to answer:

If you could completely eliminate all homosexual tendencies from the face of the earth just by wishing it, would you?

Hopefully any perceived brashness in my comments won’t prevent you from answering.
Mary in Northern Utah Says:
July 3rd, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Matt,

Thank you for your post. My feelings echo your own and I am seeking to find my voice in this matter. Please keep posting.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 7:31 AM
anon, do you really believe that everyone in Mormonism should think/believe/feel the exact same way? That people who disagree with you need to get off the bus?

If you could, would you make everyone in the church agree with you just by wishing it?

That’s dangerous stuff.

If I’d been an adult in the pre-1978 church, I would have disagreed with the church’s racist ban….and I would have been proved right. How can you be sure that I’m wrong now to support gay marriage? And how can you dare tell me that I need to leave the church because we disagree on this? What pretention!
Rick Jepson Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 7:40 AM
Matt, thanks for your thoughtful post. And thanks for not wanting either to sit still or to stand up and walk out….neither of which does any good. I too often button up and keep quiet because I trully hate making waves. I appreciate your thoughtful, supportive approach…..and I’m inspired by it to try to find my own way.

Tough, tough problem.

I’m glad I happened to work this sunday and wasn’t at church.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 7:56 AM
Thanks, Rick.

Anon (#40), so the only choices I have are to: 1.) Get in line; or 2.) Leave? Get on or get off the bus? I once wrote a post where I phrased it a little more colorfully: sh*t or get off the pot.

I don’t know, but such a stance feels inimical to the plan of salvation, to the whole idea of growing line upon line.
Eugene Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Anon #40, you ask: “If you could completely eliminate all homosexual tendencies from the face of the earth just by wishing it, would you?”

My answer: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Were this to happen the world would be hopelessly impoverished in unthinkable ways. The loss of such great musical works of Tchaikovsky, as well as the genius creations of Leonardo da Vinci and Michaelangelo leap into my mind. The blossoming creative life of my youngest, immensely talented and intelligent gay son come next, whom I talked to just this Fourth of July morning, as he joyfully thrives in the exciting musical paradise of the Chataqua music camp, rubbing shoulders and learning from world class artistic geniuses, many of whom are gay. How can you possibly be so narrow and ignorant of such historic artistic blessings? I dare add that my last question applies also to the “Proclamation”, which is the antecedent of this thread and which both misunderstands and misrepresents the wholesome spiritual purpose of gender and family both in this life AND the afterlife.
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 4:03 PM
This morning I received an e-mail from a friend holding an important position in the Church with a flyer attached titled ?¢Ç¨?ì10 Reasons to Protect California?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Marriage Law with a Constitutional Amendment.?¢Ç¨¬ù It was put out by an organization called ?¢Ç¨?ìFamily Leader,?¢Ç¨¬ù which appears to be headed up by members of the Church. In my opinion, a more dishonest piece of propaganda would be hard to find.

Because I served a mission in Norway, my friend called my attention to Reason # 2, which is as follows:

?¢Ç¨?ìChildren Pay a High Price if Marriage is Not Protected: In 1993 Norway legalized domestic partnerships. Now the average out of wedlock birthrate in Norway is a staggering 60 percent and in some areas it is as high as 80 percent. Here in the United States, one-third of children are born out of wedlock. Decades of social science and government data are absolutely conclusive that overall children have the best physical, cognitive and social outcomes when raised in a home by a married mother and father in a low conflict marriage.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Am I the only one who thinks it is ludicrous to blame the out-of-wedlock births in Norway on gay marriage? The Scandinavian countries have always had a relaxed view of sexual matters?¢Ç¨Äùanyone who has ever traveled there knows that. When I was on my mission in Norway decades ago it was common for young people to live together and bear children before deciding to get married. Heck, my own Norwegian g-g-grandmother had her first child out of wedlock and was five months pregnant with her second before she got married, and that was in 1810! How poorly did her children fare? Her son immigrated to America, joined the Mormon Church, and trekked across the plains with the pioneers, so you be the judge.

The ?¢Ç¨?ìdomestic partnerships?¢Ç¨¬ù that are legal in Norway are both heterosexual and homosexual partnerships. Guess which ones produce the most ?¢Ç¨?ìout-of-wedlock?¢Ç¨¬ù children?

I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not gay and I am an active member of the Church. I wish my Church would focus its energies on heterosexual promiscuity, which is a far greater problem than gay marriage, and stop the anti-gay propaganda. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not going to support the constitutional amendment and I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not going to let people like anon drive me out of the Church. I have no desire to embarrass the Church, but I do not plan to toe the line on this one. For me, standing up for our gay brothers and sisters who want to form a lasting relationship it is an issue of fundamental fairness?¢Ç¨Äùa moral issue.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 4th, 2008 at 11:24 PM
Eugene,

Good to see your post, dear friend. You are right that the Proclomation has much to do with this. I’m interested in your view of it, especially in its treatment of gender.

The truth seems to be that gender is a continuum rather than a concrete, dichotomous, eternal designation. I don’t know that there’s any accurate definition of “maleness” or “femaleness” that doesn’t have gaping holes in it. If you attempt to define it biologically, psychologically, socially, etc., the exceptions are too weighty for anything like our traditional understanding. That makes our allegiance to the Proclomation a bit problematic.

But I feel the same way as TryingtobeFair: I don’t want to emberass or attack the church. And I certainly don’t want to leave it or be shunned from it (sorry to disapoint, anon).

I want to find some way to be faithful, supportive, and active while still defending the shunned and while still being true to my own self.

Perhaps not easy, but worship without sacrifice is a deadly sin.
Dr JB in WI Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:23 AM
Matt,

I appreciated your thoughtful and courageous analysis of this difficult situation. Sometimes I feel like I am the only person in my ward who is uncomfortable with the social positions the church takes so it was a relief to hear you so eloquently express some of my own thoughts.

There is something we can do that will cause the church to notice. It wouldn’t actually change anything unless a large number of members did the same thing, which they won’t. We could stop paying tithing and make it clear to our leaders why we have stopped. After the Feb, 2008 Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting talks I was sufficiently upset with the direction the church is going that I resolved to stop paying tithing until the church becomes more enlightened on the status of women and gays. (I’m female and have a teenage daughter as well as sons.) Of course, this will cost me my temple recommend. But I cannot sit silently by and be a passive participant in injustice. If I’m not part of the solution, then, by default, I’m part of the problem. I refuse to finanacially support an organization that bashes gays and subordinates women. I now donate ten percent of my income to food shelters and other humanitarian agencies that don’t have an anti-female, anti-gay agenda.

Dr JB in WI
Eugene Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Friend Rick #47:

Here is a more profound “proclamation” (notice lower case p) from my beloved and wise wife, who was eager to read your response to my #45: “All this stuff [blog posting] is just a bunch of mental gymnastics,” she said, “What really counts is action, either from love or fear!”

Dare I dispute this? Of course not! Even so, I still have more to add to this “stuff”, worthwhile or not.

I agree with you that “gender is a continuum rather than a concrete, dichotomous, eternal designation.” When we discuss male/female vs masculine/feminine issues, we need to be careful that we differentiate physical from spiritual (including psychological/emotional) realities. Just a day or so ago, a “man” (who was born female) gave birth to a healthy baby girl. Perhaps you saw their story on TV? “He” and his wife will now raise their child in a committed family environment with male and female parents. I applaud their courage in publically sharing the reality of their life and views and envy the baby for choosing such committed, courageous parents. (Their first pregnancy ended in miscarriage.) It will be interesting to track their lives.

Back to your “continuum”. Yes, I believe we all have the complete continuum within us individually, only part of which we are conscious of in any given life-time on the path of eternal progression. Does that sound like reincarnation to you? It was meant to be. This became an issue for me only when I had a dream in 1964, where I dreamed of being a beautiful woman. This was a great surprise, but it began a process of reflection and introspection such as I had never before attempted. It also upset a comfortable, well respected and confident professional career as a physical scientist, as well as family and church relationships. The path of introspection and self-knowledge is loaded with hazards, as well as wonderful rewards!

Please come to my upcoming symposium presentation this year and we can continue this discussion. You can hold my feet to the fire along with Matt!
Eugene Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 12:26 PM
PS for Rick #47: What could you possibly mean by “worship without sacrifice is a deadly sin”?
Joe Geisner Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Matt can you email me privately. I need to ask a question.

A P.R. firm has been hired by the church. So things about the P.R. firm have been found like the names of the owners and their political activity. Thought some of you might find it interesting.

Schubert Flint Public Affairs
1415 L Street, Suite 1250
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: 916 – 448 – 5933

Owners: Frank Schubert, Jeff Flint
Office manager: Ms. Kristy Babb

You can take a look at their webpage: http://www.schubertpa.com/

TEXT OF LETTER ON NET:

Letter from public affairs official in California regarding Sunday’s nnouncement encouraging LDS support of anti-Gay legislation
—-

Brothers and Sisters,

We have been informed that Sunday morning, June 29, after members have heard the letter from the First Presidency read from the pulpit, some news crews may attempt to interview members of the Church as they are leaving services.

While we cannot, nor should we, do anything to stop the media from interviewing rank and file members — who are not speaking on behalf of the Church, it would be against the guidance from headquarters for any such interview or for news cameras to be in our Church buildings.

Please note that SLC, and the California office of Public Affairs are both referring any media inquiries on the subject to the coalition handling the campaign. It is imperative that DPA’s and their Assistants do the same. Any institutional media inquiries on this issue should be referred to Frank Schubert or Jeff Flint at 916 448 4234 at coalition headquarters.

For further questions regarding the role of Public Affairs, please call Keith Atkinson @ 800 533 2444.

Thank you.

Keith Atkinson

=======

END TEXT

On the company website, they claim a 90% “win” record on getting voter initiatives passed. A listing of their initiative campaigns indicates that none of them have been on an issue such as this one. Jeff Flint’s former job was with a firm that provided PR services for “Move America Forward,” who’s purpose is to promote the war in Iraq.

Jeff Flint donated $2,300 (the legal limit for an individual) to the campaign of John McCain, and the receipt was dated June 30, 2007 (when Romney was still in the race). Mr. Flint’s address, as disclosed by the McCain campaign, is 1938 Ladera Drive, Lincoln, CA, 95648-7029.

In 2001, Jeff Flint signed a stipulation with the Fair Political Practices Commission, admitting to violating the Political Reform Act “by failing to report subvendor information,” and together with his co-defendants, having to pay an “administrative penalty” of $14,000.00 for his failure to follow some sections of California civil law. Jeff Flint was acting as a campaign manager for Curt Pringle. You can find the stipulation here: ttp://www.fppc.ca.gov/Agendas/December01/pringleStip.pdf
Joe Geisner Says:
July 5th, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Here is another P.R. letter of instructions for Orange county church members that has interesting information.

To: All OC Public Affairs Personnel
Cc: Other Interested Persons

By now many of you serving in Public Affairs may have been invited by
your Stake Presidency to join other stake priesthood and auxiliary
leaders in attending a special meeting. That was to discuss points
that originated last Sunday, June 29, with a historic live interactive
telecast emanating from SLC among Elders Ballard, Cook, Wickman and
Clayton with CA Stake Presidents.

We have been asked to study out the above issue ?¢Ç¨Äú starting with the
First Presidency letter that was read in Church last Sunday and the
Proclamation on the Family. You should all have copies of these
items. As the year goes on, Public Affairs is apt to get ever more
involved, under proper Priesthood direction. This will be especially
true after Labor Day, when getting out the vote will be crucial.
Meanwhile we are asked to use ?¢Ç¨?ìour best efforts?¢Ç¨¬ù and to do ?¢Ç¨?ìall we
can?¢Ç¨¬ù to support this initiative with both our ?¢Ç¨?ìmeans and time.?¢Ç¨¬ù

To help you get prepared, here are some pertinent materials I have
gathered on this issue, for your summer reading.

1. In Re Marriage Cases. See attached PDF summary of these
consolidated cases, as issued by the Cal Sup. Ct. on 5-15-08. The
majority decision is 121 pages long plus concurring and dissenting
opinions. Essentially, the court has determined that any
classification based on sexual orientation is a ?¢Ç¨?ìsuspect
classification?¢Ç¨¬ù that requires ?¢Ç¨?ìstrict scrutiny?¢Ç¨¬ù under the ?¢Ç¨?ìequal
protection?¢Ç¨¬ù clause of the CA Constitution. It also found that the CA
Constitution has granted a ?¢Ç¨?ìfundamental right to marry.?¢Ç¨¬ù In 1948, that
enabled the court invalidate statutory restrictions on interracial
marriage. On these grounds, the court then proceeded to invalidate
the existing statutory restrictions on same-gender marriages that were
passed as Proposition 22 in 2000.

The Protectmarriage.com website. This is the key website of the
central coalition of churches and other organizations that have been
promoting what is now Prop. 8 for over a year. You will first see a
list of member organizations and sponsoring individuals belonging to
this coalition. Also see links on the left-hand side for ?¢Ç¨?ìFAQS?¢Ç¨¬ù and
some good talking points under ?¢Ç¨?ìWhy it is needed.?¢Ç¨¬ù

3. LDS.org Website. See this long but exceptionally important
and well articulated 2007 interview by Public Affairs with Elders
Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on ?¢Ç¨?ìSame-Gender Attraction.?¢Ç¨¬ù It
is at:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/same-gender-attraction

4. Meridian Magazine. ?¢Ç¨?ìWhat difference will same-gender
marriage make to you??¢Ç¨¬ù See this link:
http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080627marriage.html
Also see http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/080619ignore.html
These articles explore some of the possibly unintended consequences of
this recent Cal. Supreme Court decision.

5. NB Stake Talking Points. See attached PDF with some key
talking points created by my own Newport Beach Stake President
Weatherford Clayton. More official talking points will are being
prepared and will be provided through proper channels by LDS Church HQ
in Salt Lake City.

6. Church News Article. From 2004 issue on the benefits of
families raised within male-female marriages

HISPANICS AGAINST PROP 8. See first email attached above.
HISPANICS WHO SUPPORT IT. See email #3 attached above.

As the June 20th First Presidency letter said, more information will
be made available to you from time to time through local priesthood
channels.

You may also be aware that the new Managing Director of LDS Public
Affairs in SLC will be Michael Otterson. He has been serving as
assistant to Bruce Olsen and is originally from Australia. Brother
Olsen will be the new San Diego Temple President.

Most sincerely,
Joseph I. Bentley, Director
Orange County Public Affairs
61 Montecito Drive
Corona del Mar, CA 92625-1018
(H) 949/720-9777, (C) 949/500-9959
Sandy Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 3:50 PM
The “Letter” was read in my Ward here in Oregon this morning, (July 6). After a few moments, I walked out. I do feel that my action was a bit useless, but I couldn’t just sit there anymore. I’m nearly 60 years old, I have raised a family and toed the line all my life. I remain committed to my husband and . . . . . . . . .I have been gay all of my life. I won’t sit down for this one. In fact, I’m not sitting down EVER again.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Hey Eugene,

Per M. Gandhi, 7 deadly sins =

Wealth without Work
Pleasure without Conscience
Science without Humanity
Knowledge without Character
Politics without Principle
Commerce without Morality
Worship without Sacrifice

The last will surely mean different things to different people. To me it means that it’s OK that I’m sometimes miserable at church and that I’m often in disagreement with those sitting next to me or at the podium in front. I don’t mind sacrificing my comfort a bit here and there or being at odds. I don’t need my entire experience to be pleasant.

–Rick
Eugene Says:
July 6th, 2008 at 8:47 PM
Thanks Rick. Your explanation allows me to understand you and your point better. It also makes me think about a new hero of mine (in addition to Gandhi), a Russian Orthodox priest who exemplifies your point like no one else I know of or have read about. He lived between 1893 and 1973 and spent much of his life in the Soviet death camps. He is known as Father Arseny and his life is the definition of “worship WITH sacrifice”. I have been chastened and mellowed by his example.
anon - Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Rick (#42) – I am not the one who says that Mormons should think/believe/feel the exact same way. What is religion if not an invitation to think/believe/feel the same way.

Also, I was never talking about people who disagree with me. I have nothing to do with it – and frankly, no one here knows what I believe on the gay issue – nor should they care.

I do know how the church feels about it (as clearly expressed by the letter – among thousands of other evidences). That, my friend, is the issue.

You also wrote:

If you could, would you make everyone in the church agree with you just by wishing it?

My response: uh . . . hello, agency.

You said:

That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s dangerous stuff.

My response: What is dangerous stuff? Agency is dangerous stuff? Or, you didn’t know that that was how I was going to answer?

The pre-1978 analogy is totally ridiculous. Church leaders have always asked members to support them based on what they know, and the direction they’ve received from God (remember, Rick, it is not me asking that). Right now, church leaders have asked members to support the fight against the legal recognition of gay marriage. You and others on this board, apparently are not doing that. That doesn’t make you bad people. It just means you aren’t doing what the first presidency has asked in this particular regard. Can we agree on that much? I am happy to leave open the door and say that their direction could change and become more compassionate. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have asked something of the members – and you aren’t doing it.

See . . . this is dangerous stuff. Religion in general is dangerous stuff. Members are asked to obey orders from leaders. A member’s high-minded, “I’m smarter than the bretheren” attitude is something that they (not me) ask members to put on the alter of sacrifice.
Richard Jepson Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 11:23 AM
My friend, Anon:

(why not at least use a pseudonym? We have so many anon’s that I get you all mixed up).

You seem quite upset, and I’m sorry if I further upset you with my reaction to your post.

I agree that obedience is an important part of worship and that we’re frequently asked to sacrifice our own best judgment and trust theirs. In the past, I’ve dealt with this by never speaking my mind on the issue (even with family) but still voting my conscience (in favor of gay marriage).

But now that the church is pushing harder, I’m stuck in a very uncomfortable situation–is it really right to submit to something I completely, totally disagree with? I’m not sure I have an answer for that. The two extreme answers (submit or protest) both seem wrong to me, and Matt’s thoughtful approach seems like a brave, constructive, and faithful alternative.

You’re wrong to discount the comparison with the pre-1978 racist ban. While no comparison is perfect, these are close enough to make an instructive case study.

If I believed in 1977 that black people were equal to me, that they had committed no pre-mortal transgression, that they weren’t the decendants of a “curse,” and that they belonged in all levels of participation in the church—I would have been in sharp disagreement with the leadership of the church. But I would also have been right. Even McConkie admitted that the church was clearly wrong.

Today I’m in a similarly tenuous positon. Worse in some ways. The church not only wants to limit the way that homosexuals can participate within its own organization (which it certainly has the right to do) but it even wants to control the activity of non-mormon homosexuals.

I can’t support that. On an issue this important, I’d rather make the gravest of errors than surrender my own best judgment.

Perhaps you are right and I am a worse member than you. But our history demonstrates that revelation is not just a top-down process. And troublesome as they may be, dissenting, questioning members have influenced the church for the better.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Great comment, Rick (#57)!!

This thread continues to generate many thoughtful comments both for and against the ideas expressed in the original post, all of which typify Sunstone’s maxim: faith seeking understanding. I thank everyone for their contributions and thoughts regarding this difficult and challenging issue. Please feel free to keep the dialogue going…
anon - Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Rick (57) -

You wrote:

Perhaps you are right and I am a worse member than you.

My response:

How did you come to the conclusion I am member of the church?

You may or may not have some way of knowing that, but I think my status has nothing to do with it whatsoever. We are talking about what the Mormon religion requires of its adherents. Why can’t you get that?

(no need to worry that I am getting “quite upset” – does anyone really get upset over internet discussion boards? If so, they should have their head checked.)
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
anon (56):

You say, “Members are asked to obey orders from leaders.” I don’t view the current Church authorities as giving “orders” in the sense that term is usually understood.

Perhaps in Brigham Young’s time the concept of “giving orders” had a bit more validity. The nineteenth century Church was headquartered in a relatively isolated corner of the world and local Church leaders usually doubled as civic leaders. Even then, however, BY didn’t give “orders” nearly so often as popular culture assumes. Generally he gave “counsel” and those who had faith that he was God’s annointed one (or who just wanted to fit into the community) tended to follow it.

I do not believe “the Mormon religion requires of its adherents” that they toe the line on this issue or leave the Church. The letter from the First Presidency says, “We ASK that you do all you can to support … (etc.) (Emphasis added.) I hope this will not become a litmus test for membership. Indeed, I feel I can truthfully say that I “sustain Thomas Monson as a prophet, seer and revelator” and still believe he is human and may have erred in taking the political position that California needs a “preservation of marriage” constitutional amendment. Our religion does not require us to believe our prophets are infallible.

I think we’ll learn that a small (but significant) minority of members will not vote for the proposed amendment and will not work for its passage. There is probably a larger minority who will question (at least in their own minds) whether the bretheren are right on this issue.

Unlike Rick, I was an adult member of the Church before the revelation extending the priesthood to all black members and I did not agree with that position. I did not leave the Church because I felt there was much good in it and I continued to sustain its leaders. I was content to wait for change, but didn’t hesitate to let my acquaintenances know how I felt about the issue. Perhaps I should have done more. I was relieved when the revelation finally came, but felt it was much too late.

I feel the same way about the gay marriage issue. I don’t expect the Church will change its position anytime soon, but since I’m convinced its position on this issue is wrong, and since I know the brethern have human failings just like the rest of us, I’m content to wait (if impatiently) for the change. It may not come during my lifetime, but I believe it will. I recognize that others may differ and I also recognize that I may be wrong. But this is a possibility I’m willing to live with. I suppose only time will tell.
Eugene Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 4:00 PM
anon #59. You say, “does anyone really get upset over internet discussion boards?” Yeah, I think some do and bring their vulnerability to the table. I salute them. Sorry you feel you have to hide and play cat and mouse games. It does our dialogue–especially this particular thread–disservice.
anon - Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 4:13 PM
Fair (60):

Thanks for your comment. I don’t have time to give you the response you deserve. I would just say that there is a difference between agreeing with the bretheren and sustaining them. I used the word “support” intentionally in my comment (56).

Eugene (61):

I don’t get upset because I know that 99.9 times out of 100 I would be friends with whoever I am addressing / responding to on a discussion board – especially this discussion board.

Discussion board aggression makes about as much sense (maybe less) than road rage.

Also, to respond to your #45. You said: How can you possibly be so narrow and ignorant of such historic artistic blessings?

My response: Why do you think that my answer would be “yes” to the question I posed in #40? I feel like people have made a few unwarranted assumptions in connection to my comments (that, I believe is a disservice).
Brian Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 4:20 PM
As an LDS father of a gay son, I met with our entire stake presidency, after much persuasion. It was the result of meeting with two bishops of my ward (they changed about the time of my son coming out) and a former bishop, former lds chaplain. None of these men had anything helpful to say at all. Education is desperately needed. I met with the stake presidency to share our situation (which includes having our gay son and his partner live with us while they struggle through school). As for your bishop package, Carol Lynn Pearson’s “No More Goodbyes” is a very helpful. The personal stories in there will generate compassion in all except the unreachable. Although not universally accepted, something about the Kinsey scale is very useful helping people understand that change is possible for some, not for others.
Shelly M. Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 4:40 PM
No, the church will not change it’s position on this one. It is so central to the core of our doctrine “about the family” that for them to change would cause the church to break apart and lose it’s authority.

I am thrilled thee brethren have spoken out. It stops all the “I don’t know how to feel” crowd from having misplaced compassion and doctrines that change with the wind. I don’t have a problem with God being the same today as He was yesterday. I don’t have a problem with Him changing the rules when He wants to. I don’t have a problem with Him calling prophets to keep the line of communication open.

I for one, am not afraid to stand up and pronounce that homosexuality is wrong. Being gay is not, only practicing is. I have a gay son. I have more tender feelings towards him because of his struggle than I do my other children. I have no doubt the Lord has these very feelings. However, He as a more eternal perspective than I do and I must patiently wait for more comfort, confirmations and instruction as how to finish raising my son. Until then, I will seek the counsel of the brethren.

I do like the comment posted above that marriage elevates the status of families and provides protections. If gays are going to continue to break God’s commandments, then we should provide a status for them that provides protection and benefits of marriage (because of the children), but not the religious title that God gave to heterosexual couples since the beginning of time. I just see it as a mockery to God. It is not our title to re-define. It is not their privilege to take.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 5:54 PM
Brian (#63), Thanks for your comment, and your recommendation to buy CLP’s No More Goodbye’s. I actually ordered two copies of the book from Barnes & Noble this morning, one for me and one for my bishop. I’ve almost bought the book at past Sunstone Symposiums, and again when I saw it on sale in the foyer of her former son-in-law’s one-man play, “Confessions of A Mormon Boy,” which I saw last year in Los Angeles.

Anon (#62), please delineate between “agree,” “sustain,” and “support.” Because I’m not following you. I think Trying to be Fair and Rick Jepson have done a fine job of demonstrating how one can support and sustain, and still disagree.

There is ample historical evidence that even the various members of the Q12 have often disagreed with each other, while still supporting and sustaining each other. Prince’s David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism and Bergera’s Conflict in the Quorum come to mind.

Think Widstoe and Talmadge vs. Joseph Fielding Smith on Evolution. Think Hugh Brown vs. McConkie, Peterson, and Benson on Blacks & the Priesthood. Think Orson Pratt vs. Brigham Young on Adam/God. These were major doctrinal issues, easily on par with the issue of Defining Marriage. If Apostles can’t agree with each other — but still find it within themselves to support and sustain each other — why should we agree?

I’ll close with a quote by Apostle Orson Pratt:

“[I am] not a man to make a confession of what I do not believe. I am not going to crawl to Brigham Young and act the hypocrite. I will be a free man… It may cost me my fellowship, but I will stick to it. If I die tonight, I would say, O Lord God Almighty, I believe what I say.”

I think many of us feel the same way.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:02 PM
anon, it’s too bad that you don’t seem to want to engage in the meaningful discussion.
We won’t get very fair so long as you crouch behind anonymity and answer every single post with “you don’t know who I am” instead of speaking to the substance.

I know you disclaim anger, but you seem very full of emotion and very inflammatory. I’m sorry that I probably added to that. It’s a very thorny issue and I find myself overwhelmed by it.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:04 PM
TryingtobeFair: Thanks for your last post. It explained my feelings much better than I did myself.

Matt, thanks for the quote and for (finally) getting a really stirring thread here on the underused forum.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Matt, what the ref on that O. Pratt quote?

thanks.
anon - Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:19 PM
Matt(65)-

I am sorry I have apparently given myself to rampant mischaracterization. I never said that one must AGREE with the bretheren on everything. I’ve only said that they have to “fall in line” or “get on the bus.” These are my synonyms for “sustain” or the interchangeable “support.”

“Agreement” with the first presidency appears to rarely if ever be a requirement of the Mormon church. So I will concede that one can disagree with the first presidency and still sustain them (this accounts for all of your examples cited above).

I believe that to sustain/support the first presidency means to recognize that they are called of God and obey their counsel.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:25 PM
anon, comment 69 was refreshingly engaging.

Thanks.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Rick (#68), that colorful quote, and many others, can be found in Gary Bergera’s book, Conflict in the Quorum.

Pratt also said, “We have hitherto acted too much as machines… as to following the Spirit… I will confess to my own shame [that] I have decided contrary to my own [judgment] many times… I mean hereafter not to demean myself as to let my feelings run contrary to my own judgment… When [President Young] says that the Spirit of the Lord says thus and so, I don’t consider [that]… [and] all we should do is to say let it be so.”

I think what he is trying to say is that when the prophet speaks, we shouldn’t just say “let it be so,” but that we should seek our own independent spiritual guidance as well. It’s like Hugh B. Brown said:

“Preserve the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts.” [emphasis added]

Of course, Heber C. Kimball articulated Anon’s and Shelly’s point of view:

“Brother Orson Pratt has withstood Joseph [Smith] and he has withstood Brother Brigham [Young] many times and he has done it tonight and it made my blood chill. It is not for you to lead [the prophet],” Kimball continued, “but to be led by him. You have not the power to dictate but [only] to be dictated [to].”

What makes my blood run chill is the concept that I am only “to be dictated to.” But these debates have been waged since the dawn of man. I’d like to think both Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were BETTER prophets for having a guy like Orson Pratt in the quorum, someone who would speak his conscience and not simply be “dictated to,” or who would just “get on the bus.”

And I hope we have Orson Pratts in the Q12 today, but something tells me we don’t, at least not on this issue.
Richard Jepson Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 7:29 PM
But really, we may. In our children’s or grandchildren’s view of history, there may be another Brown or Pratt in the 12 quietly arguing points or nudging things along. I think only time can reveal this.

But I get the impression that Elder Faust had a great deal of that in him. And I suspect a few others.
anon Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Rick, your comment (66) was strange – and it would take longer than it is worth to set you straight – but I will if you want, but you never answered me.

In the meantime – let me try clarifying. To “sustain” in the context of this dialogue is to 1. recognize that the first presidency is called of God (no one seems to have a problem with this), 2. Obey their counsel (ah – there’s the rub).

Do you all agree / disagree that, in the context of this dialogue, that is a fair definition of “sustain”?

In my view, accepting this definition has a lot of implications for this discussion.

1. “Sustain” and “agree” are two different things. We are instructed to sustain our leaders, even if we don’t agree with them. Agreed?

2. Those of us who oppose the first presidency’s position as articulated in the letter on gays, and those of us who hope for the success of the very thing which they have asked us to oppose are NOT sustaining the first presidency (on this issue). Can we admit that much?

3. I realize that “sustain” is probably not an all or nothing thing – (although (as demonstrated by my previous posts), I believe that people should endeavor to have it be all or nothing (to quote Matt T. Sh*t or get off the toilet)). That said, I think you could sustain the first presidency on 8 of 10 issues and still be deemed to sustain your leaders (subject to all kinds of circumstances not included herein). (Further, I am guessing guys like Matt and Rick are in that boat – it seems. Matt’s bishop is probably happy as a clam to have Matt break bread for the congregation- in spite of (or perhaps because of) his quandary.)

4. The “blacks and the priesthood” thing is not that instructive. Yes, it may provide an example of where they said X, but changed it to Y. But it doesn’t change what we are supposed to do, which is to sustain them. At best, it goes to whether we agree with them.

5. Matt- your quotes about q12s disagreeing with each other goes to the issue of AGREE, not to SUSTAIN.

6. I am trying to make this an issue of SUSTAIN. Can you disagree w/ the first presidency and still sustain? Yes. Can you disobey and still sustain? No. Is going against what they ask us to do disobedience? Probably. Is it excusable or justified? I don’t know. But, let’s not confuse what we are really talking about.

And, quit pretending like you all know where I stand on this. When you pigeon-hole a contributor you are a traitor to your own stated objectives. I am a little surprised that those who so earnestly seek to be understood don’t appear to return the favor.
Mike Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 8:20 PM
What would Jesus do? I don’t think there is an obvious answer. It seems to me that we are told on the one hand not to be judgmental and to be tolerant, and on the other hand, if we disagree with the viewpoint that homosexuals should have “equality”, i.e., that they should have ‘marriages’ with all the same rights and priveleges as heterosexual couples, then we are met with indignation and even fury.

I think that everyone has the right to enter into contracts – but I think that we should recognize, not minimize the distinctions between the gender roles. We should not be forced to accept the feminization of our young men. Neither should we be indoctrinated into masculinizing our young women. They are fine just as they are, they need no re-education, and neither do we adults. We should not be forced in our public policies to regard masculinity and feminity as equals. YES – we should VALUE them equally, but that’s an entirely different matter – it doesn’t mean to blind ourselves to the obvious differences. I think every child deserves the masculine and feminine models in his development. I believe that development is essential to everyone, and can only occur when there are distinctly different but equally valued gender roles. Mothers are nurturers, fathers are individualists. This is not pigeonholing; it is recognition . We are all still free to be whoever/whatever we wish. But we should not go to such extremes of misguided “equality” that we ignore the fundamental masculine/feminine energies and what they mean to society and culture. For far too long we have labored under the demands of political agendas that we blind ourselves to direct observation. We don’t have to fault ourselves or believe that it is blind prejudice to observe that men and women are different and that that polarity is there on purpose and (in my estimation at least) for a divine purpose.

It seems to me that to institute gay marriage against the wishes of society would be to compel us to believe that marriage is solely for the purpose of gratification of the sexual desire. It seems to me that it cheapens marriage, places it firmly on the plane of physical attraction and nothing more.
If you believe that gay marriage is the right thing to do, upon what principle do you then prohibit other marriages that people may be interested in consummating, say, a man and his horse, (see Caligula), or a man and his thermostat?
Marriage is for the development and refinement of our character, it is more than a cathartic release or a discharge of sexual tension. I believe that when God created Male and Female, he provided that opposition or polarity for our ultimate good, and perhaps in no other way could we achieve our ultimate character building potential. Now, what evidence exists that the Lord will bless the union of two males together, or two females? Are you asserting that at some point the Lord will reveal to us that we are to permit such marriages in His Temple?

I am tired of being judged as lacking “compassion” because I have a different viewpoint. I am tired of the incredulous stares I get from the progressive liberals when I tell them my beliefs about sexual identity and sexual development. Why is it any concern of theirs what I believe or how I view this issue? It’s a private matter, and I am disgusted to no end when I see how the gay agenda far too often permeates our popular culture all with the insidious motive of changing our minds to one of acceptance, and so-called ‘tolerance’. If I have to tolerate your viewpoint, then you have to tolerate mine. So let’s see how much compassion you really exercise.

The Supreme Court of California apparently has no compassion or tolerance for people who believe anything other than gay marriage is a Constitutional ‘right’. I guess that makes me the stupid rube that fell off the turnip truck.
Eugene Says:
July 7th, 2008 at 8:44 PM
Sorry, Anon #62 re #40, you lost me. But it looks like Rick #70 got found. Nice to see some “stick-to-it-ness.” Lots of energy still in this thread!

Shelly M #64, I sincerely hope your sensitive son has a healthy inner self-image despite the judgment you clearly have on him. He has an uphill struggle not to take that on. I know this struggle myself. Does he really confide in you? Have you read CLP’s book, “No more goodbyes”?
LG Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 7:04 AM
Your comment: ?¢Ç¨?ìIn other words, as followers of Jesus, we are called not only to care for those who are suffering, but also to transform the conditions that bring about suffering.?¢Ç¨¬ù

Transformation starts with the self. It is an inward realization of an outward expression. It is interesting to read your struggle with your outward surroundings! Relax?¢Ç¨¬¶take a deep breath and realize that your struggles are no different than anyone?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s else. The may differ in what you choose to give meaning to, but they are all the same. They all are ?¢Ç¨?ìFEAR?¢Ç¨¬ù driven! Why? Because this is the level of consciousness we so freely choose to exist at.

Sure we are all sheep or goats. It is the meaning we choose and give to our existence of who we choose to be. Some have forgotten who we really are and love to play the game, ?¢Ç¨?ìSomething is broken so I must fix it!?¢Ç¨¬ù Christ came to show us not what we can become, but came to show us who we really are. Were we not made in the exact image of our heavenly father? We stress so incredibly hard about being right so that someone can be wrong and never stop to realize the game we are all playing. Is not the message really about ?¢Ç¨?ìinfinite-unconditional love?¢Ç¨¬ù instead of some institution being right and the others wrong! That is a zero sum game and there is no possibility.

In the beginning G_D gathered his sheep and his goats and shared an incredible plan called salvation. We all gathered, listened carefully and raised our hands to the square and agreed to the great plan! We exercised our free agency and gave meaning to an awesome plan that transcends time and has no end. Go ahead and pinch your cheek. Are we not here breathing and continuing to give meaning to this incredible existence we all agreed to? Did we not also by agreeing to the great plan of salvation also give meaning to the hereafter?

In the great plan we also gave meaning to the law of marriage. We all agreed that man and women would come together unto this institution ordained by G_D. Marriage is designed to help us all learn about our relationship with G_D and further our understanding of the relationship of our roles as ?¢Ç¨?ìCo-Creators?¢Ç¨¬ù. So, here lies the question in this blog! Why is it said that man and man and women and women are an abomination unto G_D? Is it perhaps man and man and women and women joined together cannot co-create? If there was no creation, then ultimately there would be no us and if there is no us then there would be no G_D, because there would ultimately be no us to give meaning to G_D and thus G_D would cease to exist and we would cease to exist!

Maybe one day we all will be able to walk past our fears and realize that G_D loves us unconditionally. Perhaps we will rise to the level of love that our savior so fervently taught. I am willing to give meaning to that. Are you?
Shelly M. Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 7:34 AM
Eugene, you are out of line. To suggest that I have a “judgment” on my son is mighty arrogant of you. He is not homosexual, he is gay. He is a prodigy piano player and a genius in math. He is struggling with the pseudo labels that society thrusts on anyone who is not like themselves (especially at school). However, we talk constantly about those “boundaries” and how important it is to follow Christ first.

Yes, I have read Carolyn’s book along with “Goodbye, I Love You.” I read almost everything I can get my hands on. I have taken this issue to prayer and fasting, and I can tell you that each of us has a struggle to bear. Being gay is one of the deeper ones, but not something that can’t be overcome through Christ.

I watch my son on a daily basis make small corrections and move in a direction that enhances his abilities to make choices that are conducive to the teachings of the Savior. There is no force, only a recognition and education that through Christ all things are possible.

I think that is where the gay community gives up. They think they are doomed to be this way, or even born this way. In reality it is like all the other tribulations we are “blessed” with to forge our spirits into becoming more like the Savior when we triumph over them.

The difference between humans and animals is that we all have impulses, but as humans we can decide whether we want to act on them.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:08 AM
anon said: “And, quit pretending like you all know where I stand on this.”

This is your own fault, but the solution is simple, stop hiding behind anonymity and start sharing your view and your person. So long as you refuse to open yourself up in dialogue, you won’t get far and no one will have notion of your stance aside from your critique of others.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:18 AM
Mike:

“but I think that we should recognize, not minimize the distinctions between the gender roles”

If they were only so well defined as you seem to imagine.

“It seems to me that to institute gay marriage against the wishes of society would be to compel us to believe that marriage is solely for the purpose of gratification of the sexual desire.”

If it were just about sex, do you really think homosexuals would be pushing for marriage?

“If you believe that gay marriage is the right thing to do, upon what principle do you then prohibit other marriages that people may be interested in consummating, say, a man and his horse, (see Caligula), or a man and his thermostat?”

One word: consent.

“Are you asserting that at some point the Lord will reveal to us that we are to permit such marriages in His Temple?”

Who has argued for this? I’ve not seen it on this thread anywhere. What the church does with its temples is clearly its business. But when the church weighs in on public policy–and implies that good membership is based on compliance–there’s a problem.

“The Supreme Court of California apparently has no compassion or tolerance for people who believe anything other than gay marriage is a Constitutional ?¢Ç¨Àúright?¢Ç¨Ñ¢.”

Translation: The Supreme Court has no compassion for intolerance. Shame on them.

We have checks and balances because the popular vote can lead to mob rule. If a majority of Californians wanted to re-institute slavery or set up separate bathrooms for black people, the Supreme Court could and should prevent them. That’s its function.
Eugene Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Shelly M #76, your passion for this subject comes across powerfully to me and I want very much to respond to your comments as clearly about it as I can. But before doing so, please explain your understanding of the difference between the terms “gay” and “homosexual”. I have long been under the impression they were synonymous. Obviously I need correction so that we are both on the same page. I don’t want us to preach to each other. I’d rather that we simply know each other’s stories. I, too, have a talented gay son in whom I have the deepest respect and confidence. He teaches me much. I mention him in one of CLP’s stories in “No More Goodbyes”.
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Shelly – Is there a difference between someone who is gay and someone who is homosexual? My dictionary says they are synonyms. Is it the same sort of difference as between an American who is black and an “African American?” Is it a question of political correctness, or do you intend something more profound when you say your son is not homosexual, but gay?

I’m just looking for clarification.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:32 AM
anon, I have no idea which anon you are. And you have the right to remain anonymous even if it hampers your own ability to discuss (which doubles back and upsets you).

We have had a lot of anon’s here at sunstoneblog, and I’ve know who most of them were. I know for sure that you’re not the one who attacked Eugene irately a few months ago. (And who also posts with three or four different names even in the same thread to gange up on people). And I hope to hell that you’re not who I think you might be: J.

If you are J, you’re a lot better than your behavior on this thread, and you should knock it off and just be yourself.

If you’re another, new anon. Welcome. : )

But really, do yourself a favor and open up. Look at Eugene. We disagree on probably 95% of everything in the universe. But I sure never doubt where he stands, so our exchange is straighforward and symbiotic.
Eugene Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Hey Rick #81! Really 95%?? C’mon, let’s see if we can whittle that number down a bit.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 9:51 AM
I exaggerate! I’m sure it’s not more than 94%.

Ha!

But really, of course we agree on more than that. We also disagree about a whole, whole lot. Not even just in data, but in perspective.

And….that’s the beauty of a forum like this. Two wildly different people can exchange ideas to the mutual benefit of each.
Shelly M. Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 10:02 AM
Gay – Having feelings of same-sex attraction. Having tendencies outside of the societal norms.

Homosexual – Acting on those feelings and tendencies through sexual behavior.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 10:28 AM
I’ve not seen that deliniation before, but it helps me understand your post. Thanks for the clarification.
Brian Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 10:35 AM
To Shelly M:

I appreciate reading of your faith. I too am LDS and have a son who is gay (I don’t distinguish between gay and homosexual). I emphathize deeply with your comment that you “read almost everything I can get my hands on.” That has been my life for the last 2+ years. My resolution of the situation has been different than yours, however.

I do have questions that I hope you will feel free to answer. You use the term the “gay community”. What does that term mean to you?

You stated that they (the gay community) “think they are doomed to be this way or even born this way”. What are your feelings on “born this way” and how have you arrived at them?

I ask because my wife and I are convinced my son was born gay. We had these feelings since he was very young. When he came out to us, it did not surprise us. My reaction to his coming out surprised me, however. When he said the words, my immediate reaction was of complete and utter sadness. Not because of lost dreams of ours as his parents, but that because of the expectations placed on him as an LDS youth he had been living a lie, never being able to be himself or even open up to us during his entire teenage years. I had told my wife for years that he was a “walking defense mechanism”. The years of deflecting our questions finally made sense. I cried for days because of the pain he must have been suffering, not because he was “gay”.

Your faith tells you this is “not something that can’t be overcome through Christ” and you mention “it is one of the deeper ones”. What I have come to struggle with is how our leaders sometimes do not even acknowledge “it is one of the deeper ones”. They sometimes dismiss it with comments that compare it to a tendency to anger, etc. Marginalizing the one aspect of humanity that has the largest affect on human nature will not help people to deal with homosexuality. I also struggle with the reluctance of leaders to say this may be God-given and it the cross to bear that gay people have. Given my belief that most gays (not all) are “born this way”, that is the only thing that makes sense to me. Anyone who has extensive experience in dealing with gays, realizes that “changing” rarely happens.

My disappointment stems from the fact that the church was the first place I looked for answers. I not only found no answers, I found the hostility of some of the brethren, not the least of which was chapter 6 of Miracle of Forgiveness.

I realize that you will disagree with much of what I have said. I post here in the hope of learning from you, since your faith has been able to withstand things that mine has not. I hope you have not abandoned the discussion here.
Mike Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 10:43 AM
What we have here is a very chilling effect on religious freedom – what happens if an LDS bishop, or anyone else for that matter, religious or non-religious, refuse to marry gays together out of personal philosophical grounds? What if an unwed parent wishes to put up her child for adoption, and specifies that it be a heterosexual couple, because she desires the best future for her child?

I think there are quite a few unmasculine men in our nation, largely to the confusion of sex roles promulgated by a minority of folks who insist upon seeing things in terms of their own philosphy, and everyone else’s philosophy takes a hike.

A small minority of homosexual people are railroading the rest of us, against the wishes of the majority. What happened to majority rule? What happened to the idea of democracy? I guess only if you can convince a certain category of people that they are suffering “discrimination” can you then qualify to inflict your desires upon the masses. Such has happened in this case, to the detriment of religious freedom, and to the erosion of basic societal structures, such as the family.

No matter how “heroic” you claim that such an effort is, you have basically thwarted democracy, and NOT promoted it. I believe that is because hormones are calling the shots, and not the higher influences such as compassion, and/or tolerance, despite your efforts at camoflaging your real motives.

The liberal party is promoting feminine values and emasculating men in America. It’s time as a society that we shed our abhorrence of drawing true distinctions between the genders (yes, they DO exist), and celebrate them, not repress them, or try to assert that they are “equal” when what we really mean is that while we VALUE them equally, there are distinctions and differences. And those differences are there for a reason.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Mike (#74) said, “I think every child deserves the masculine and feminine models in his development.”

I agree, I think. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of children do not have both masculine and feminine role models in the home. And another significant percentage have male and female role models in the home, but not good ones.

To me, “Gender” as a necessary characteristic for parenthood falls well below such characteristics as Love, Nuture, and the ability to provide for the emotional, spiritual, educational, and financial wellfare of the child. After that, the idiosyncracies of “Gender” — whatever those are?? — are merely a bonus.

I don’t know, the more I think about it, the less I’m convinced that gender is all that important. What are the ideal or necessary masculine and feminine qualities that need to be modeled for a child? I honestly don’t know. Can we even define them? People are so complex. For example, I’d describe myself as a strong “0″ on the Kinsey Scale, but I’ve also always felt I possessed certain characteristics Western society would classify as “feminine”: i.e. ability to nuture, being in touch with my feelings/emotions, an eye for fashion, design, etc.

Does that make me a worse role model for my children? Would they be better off if I were the iconic strong, silent, stoic, type of male? Would they be better off with a father who, I don’t know, chops wood, shoots deer, drives a truck, and has to shave his beard three times a day?

Gender just feels far too complex and varied to have an “ideal”. It’s like saying the ideal father should be 6′2″.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Mike, I am also bewildered by these very troubling hypothetical questions. I can’t claim that this is a topic I’m completely comfortable with or that I can even begin to understand.

However, I’m not comfortable being asked by my church to vote a particular way even if I agree with it (and it’s harder in this case since I actually support gay marriage).

I’m a little alarmed by your statement about “feminine values” and hormone-driven policy. That’s sounds amazingly mysoginistic; did you maybe not mean it the way it has come across to me?

The truth about gender is that it just isn’t as concrete as we act. These conversations would be easier if it were, but that’s just not the case.

There isn’t any suitable social, behavioral, anatomical, or even genetic definition of gender that doesn’t seem to me to be fraught with glaring exceptions. So while the Kinsey scale may not be universally accepted, it at least seems right to look at gender as a continuum rather than two distinct categories.
Mike Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 11:29 AM
The role of legislation is compulsion. It is to force people to behave in accordance with a standard. To those of you who wish not to enforce your standards upon others, I wish you would see the Supreme Court decision in its true light: A force to compel everyone under its influence to behave in a preapproved way.

What is marriage? It’s a relationship – one that to many people, is sacred and holy, and to others, although they may not consider it sacred, it at least has some significance, or meaning, which places it above every other earthly relationship. Is it a piece of paper, or does it transcend earthly records? I think the answer is clear: it is a transcendental relationship, which doesn’t rely upon an earthly or material record for its existence.

What then is the impetus behind the demand for the ‘right to marry’ on an equal footing with heterosexual relationships? It can be argued that it is to obtain some of the legal and financial advantages enjoyed by the heterosexuals, but those advantages can be obtained by means other than an official sanction by the state.

I think that it more properly springs from the desire to force our society to accept something we don’t wish to accept and actually voted against: that the homosexual relationship is to be valued and revered on an equal basis with heterosexual relationships, and this is to be enforced by law. Even if we have alternate opinions, those are proscribed by judicial fiat – and the Supreme Court decision imperils philosophical and religious freedom of thought.

It turns out that compassion, enforced by law, and tolerance, again enforced by law, paradoxically tramples on both compassion and tolerance, by eliminating any refuge to any viewpoint other than total acceptance of homosexual marriage as proper and mainstream, despite our personal viewpoints, diverse though they may be.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 11:38 AM
This is all very interesting to me since my great, great, great grandparents and their fellow Mormons argued quite passionately that the government had no right to define marriage.

Because the American majority disagreed, my GGG-grandpa spent his life hiding in the mountains and hardly knew or provided for his three families. He was also incarcerated…for no other reason than that the majority disagreed with his definition of marriage and felt that his definition had a destructive influence on society.

Would you say that, because they were the majority, they were justified in their persecution?
Shelly M. Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Brian, your post is sincere and I hope I can respond in brief, as I could write volumes at this point.

Let me start with a few comments about how I perceive the relationship between the gay individuals and the leaders/members of the church.

I am a member, but I will defend my son fiercely against well-intentioned, but misguided church members. Never will I expect other church members to love my son as I love him. Some may, but most are as imperfect as I am and have fear and insecurities. They have no exposure to the realities of the problem. I prefer they retreat to their silence rather than spew words of inaccuracy or condescension.

With homosexuality on the rise, and more dialog about it, we can expect more truth and research to surface. We can expect comments made by church leaders to be more sensitive without compromising the core doctrines.

Never will I expect the church to change its core doctrine about marriage and the family being central to the plan of salvation. There is room in the middle, that is safe and peaceful.

When I refer to gay individuals, I refer to those who are “in the struggle” of having feelings of same-sex attraction. When I refer to the gay community, I am referring to a group of individuals who are organized, politically active and only want immediate acceptance of illicit behaviors (gay pride parades, porn, etc.)and other activities that are degrading and repulsive. These same activist try to disguise these demands by emulating a community as loving adults who want families and marriage.

Now to address your questions: I believe children are born with tendencies that are extreme for their sex. Unfortunately, we as a society have drawn lines (pink is for girls, blue is for boys, boys don’t cry, girls don’t…). Without these extremes we will miss out on some of the greatest contributions in music, math, the arts, etc., There is nothing wrong with those extremes.

It is when those extremes are left unchecked, (given guidance and direction as to appropriate boundaries) the child progresses to the next level and fully develops stronger emotions and feelings found within gay individuals.

I watched my son struggle, yet when gently correcting his course, he has chosen to adopt more conventional behaviors. For instance, he loved to wear nail polish and he loved to wear his sister’s panties when he was younger. We taught him that it was okay to be goofy, but when we go to school we don’t wear nail polish and we wear boys underwear. I know this sounds “simplistic”, but it can be applied to more complicated scenarios.

During the course of our gently guiding him back to the center, we have also discussed the boundaries the Lord has set for sexual behaviors. We talk of the Apostle Paul not being married, but not visiting brothels either. We talk of women who never married, but remain virgins to keep the commandments. For most, this would seem an impossibility. They do not have themselves anchored in Christ and trust that he can and will help them through these circumstances.

We will know in a few years as he sets a course for the remainder of his life whether he will continue to make disciplined decision and follow a course through Christ, or if he will succumb to the emotional pressures that haunt him daily, but I have watched him progress leaps and bounds.

I have heard of men being in prison camps for years and mentally preparing themselves everyday to live another day. I don’t see where each of us are not capable of living the kind of life we want to lead.

I watched my adult brother make so many choices that pulled him away from his wife and children that he reached a point of no return. I truly believe if he had not waited 30 years to try and turn his life around, it would have been much easier.

Do gays deserve to marry? We as a society need to cross that bridge. If we are a godless society and do not base our laws on spiritual principles, then the secular argument is the correct argument. If we are a religious society and truly believe God has a plan for us, then we will not grant something that is in contradiction to his plan. It only hurts the individual to continue down a path that will push them further away from their divine potential.

These changes in society also explain why the Savior is coming back at this time. We will literally need to be saved from ourselves.
Brian Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Thank you for your response. Your thoughts on not expecting much from those who do not experience homosexuality personally or in a loved one is essential in maintaining one’s peace in the LDS community, especially in CA where I live, given the amendment process we will be in for the next few months.

Does it bother you that leaders of the church have, in the past, not risen much, if at all, above the common ideas of their day when discussing homosexuality?

On this issue, I haven’t read anything remotely resembling “watchman on the tower” vision, especially during the 1960s and 1970s.
Mike Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 3:45 PM
There is no proper comparison between polygamy and other proposed forms of marriage, such as same gender “marriage”. At least in polygamous marriages there are still strict gender roles, something our society has denigrated to the point that most people are wildly inarticulate in their confusion about gender. Maybe you don’t see much distinction, maybe the social experimentation you have been subjected to has nearly stamped out the distinction, but does that mean that those who are clear about gender roles must conform by law to the prevailing wisdom? Heaven forbid. I don’t tell you what to think but neither should you tell me I have no freedom to think and to express those thoughts, which I fear is what the High Court is presuming to tell us.

Only on the surface can these two versions be classed in the same category. If nothing else, was polygamy ever legalized in the US?

But the similarities are far less than the dis-similarities. Obviously polygamous marriages produce offspring. They were practiced in the Bible. They were condoned by the Lord. Coincidentally enough, polygamy seems to suit the innate characteristics of each gender, the male – as individualist – seeking to sow his seed widely with his priority being the individual over the environment – the female – as the nurturer, caretaker, relationship oriented entity is the perfect complement to the male – with her priority being the relationship over the individual. Such a perfectly complementary creation, these two whom the Bible indicates should become one.

What is marriage? I have asked this before. To find happiness you must look in the right places. God pronounced it good that men and women have the companionship of each other. The problems of the homosexual will not ameliorate because you give them a piece of paper officially sanctioning their relationship. Their relationship exists whether the government confirms it or not. They will still experience the same human experiences as before, only now they will have a legally binding contract enforced upon us all by the state. As many proponents of homosexual marriage have claimed, not much will change – for them maybe, but a lot of religious expression will of necessity have to change to be acceptable to the “High Court”. One wonders why they need this piece of paper to sanction their relationship. Their stated goals and their actual goals may or may not be the same. I think much of the accomodation efforts are targeted at silencing dissent, and gaining acceptance and approval. And possibly some of it may be for the purpose of spite – against fundamentalists, or even for the purpose of furthering the political aspirations of those who have something to gain by seeming to be against those narrow-minded religionists.

Certainly the finding of a constitutional right in the law for such is breathtakingly outrageous and a blow to religious and philosophical freedom. Now that the law men in black robes have condoned it, it won’t be long before it will be unlawful to speak your own mind in any way shape or form against it. You may find it difficult to have your own opinion even in your career, please note that people have been known to lose their job over expressing their disapproval of company policies promoting the gay agenda and lifestyle, and now the encroachment will only deepen.

It is not the place of government to define compassion and to compel us to practice it. We define what we feel is compassionate and whether or not to express it in our behavior. Compassionate behavior is up to our discretion and freedom of choice. It is not in the realm of secular judges to pretend that they set the standards of compassion and to be the thought police and compel us to accept a lifestyle choice which is against our own moral conscience.

I do not envy the homosexual community their plight, I truly do not judge them for their choices – but I do judge the effect of the law upon the rest of us.

The gays have their own problems, high promiscuity and suicide rates, high rates of depression, shorter lifespan, etc. Now, suppose I believe that homosexuality is maladaptive behavior? Am I free to express that at my company event “celebrating” Joe and Steve’s relationship? Can I be found in contempt of society and in contempt of law? Judging by the reactions of those who support the gay agenda, I have no free agency to choose my own opinion any more – I am somehow less enlightened, less loving, and I find that it ironic that those who claim to be standing up for the victimized – are themselves victimizing others and apparently not even willing to consider the full consequences of their actions.

I use the 80-20 rule in my discussion of gender. Actually it may be more like 95-5 or 90-10, but as long as you don’t hold me to a 100 percent standard, I can make some broad generalizations. I believe that the masculine role in society has been something which has been socialized out of us by the anti-patriarchal postmodernists. In their misunderstanding, and casting all males as brute, aggressive chauvinists they have taught us all that the most important thing a male can do is to get in touch with his inner feminine, and curb his aggression, play fair, don’t bully others, don’t engage in hazing rituals at the college level. In short, don’t be a male, be a wussified version of a male. I’m sorry if the term wussy is offensive to anyone, but its pretty descriptive of what I’m trying to say.

This philosophy gets promoted in a political and cultural movement, and no wonder that so many men are feeling at a loss as to their identity and role in a postmodern society. They constantly feel they have to make themselves over in an attempt to be acceptable to the female culture, and hang their heads in shame at doing anything male. Just look at the TV set and see how many times males are made to appear goofy, inept, incompetent, impulsive, you name it. They are taught to give away their power because it is unacceptable today to be too powerful as a man.
Lynne Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m new to this thread, but have been following the discussion with interest. I think gays want marriage for the same reason the rest of us want marriage rather than merely a ?¢Ç¨?ìliving together?¢Ç¨¬ù relationship: It is an historically and culturally recognized covenant between two committed, loving adults that has the approval and blessing of society. To deny gays fulfillment of that desire seems little different than the dehumanizing way colonial plantation owners ignored their slaves?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ family ties when it suited their own interests. Slaves were ?¢Ç¨?ìless than?¢Ç¨¬ù?¢Ç¨Äùso their needs could be ignored. I think many people pushing for this amendment have had little personal experience with gays beyond the stereotypes shown in the media. Deep down they view them as flamboyant, copulating, DNA embarrassments best sidelined and re-closeted so they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have to deal with them. I believe the majority of gays are trying to be decent, hard-working, law-abiding human beings, just like the rest of us, with the same human needs for acceptance and equality.

My brother was gay. He came out when he was 18. Until then he was what many in our ward considered the ideal Mormon boy, the kind most parents would want their daughters to marry. He played the piano in priesthood and Sacrament Meeting, attended seminary, and participated in all the youth events. He was the kind of kid who was asked to speak in stake conference because he did it so well?¢Ç¨Äùarticulate and self-assured, an example for other youth. And so it was shocking to many when he came out. I have to say that I wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t blown away when I heard the news, because there was always something a little different about him. Effeminate? Overly emotional? Artistic? It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s hard to put it in words, but it was there all along. I think my parents did a fairly good job accepting my brother after the initial shock. This was two decades ago, when gays weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t as visible, when there were fewer resources available to help families adjust. However, my brother must have felt a need to find a place where he could be himself, because we lost touch with him for eight years?¢Ç¨Äùuntil he called me one Sunday night to tell me he had AIDS. After that I had many occasions to become part of his life, making trips to San Francisco to be with him as his health declined. He had joined another church, I discovered, a church within the gay community. My brother had become a kind of minister there, which didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t surprise me. I was struck by the devotion my brother?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s many friends showed him during his illness. They were like family. I was with him the day he died and was amazed at the flood of male friends who came to the hospital to say goodbye. When he passed, about a dozen of them stood with me in a circle around his bed, one offering a prayer in behalf of all of us. It was a moment I thought I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d never forget.

But I did. A few years back when our ward members were being marshaled into a political action group to garner support for Prop. 22, my bishop asked me to head the campaign for our ward. I was the media specialist for the Stake Public Affairs committee at the time and it probably seemed like a good fit. I was a good Mormon Church worker who never turned down a calling, and so I accepted the assignment. I felt uncomfortable about the whole thing and kept thinking I would tell the bishop I couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t do it. But time passed, and I never did. And so I participated, put a Prop. 22 sign in my front yard and canvassed our neighborhood. I had a teenage son who was struggling with his testimony at the time and thought the Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s position on the issue was seriously un-Christian. He came to Church infrequently in those days, and it seemed like every time he showed up, someone was talking about Prop. 22 from the pulpit. He ended up not going on a mission and leaving the Church. Prop. 22 wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t the only factor in his decision, but I believe it played a part in it.

Some of us learn our lessons slowly. I guess this post is my effort to be less of the goat that Matt referenced. I have had enough. This time I will not take part in any political efforts to sideline gays and lesbians.
Lee Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 5:35 PM
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long held to the doctrine of separation of church and state originating in part from the long antagonism local and state governments have had towards their faith. Mormon writings have affirmed “[n]o domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law. The Church’s official Articles of Faith, which outline the basic beliefs of the church, state that: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law”.[36] [37]
1. Clark, James R. (1965). “Messages of the First Presidency”. Brigham Young University, Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
2. ^ “Political Neutrality”. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-30.

I find the letter to our Californian members disturbing. We are continually told by our leaders to become more Christ like. How can we betray our commitment! I am not homophobic and have two friends that are openly gay. I am married and a father of two children, one 15 and the other 11. I do not tell them that they are bad! I do not run in my house and hide when I see them. I do not judge them and put myself on a higher pedestal. I hold open the possibility of Christ like love and fully living the gospel.

I am ashamed!
Eugene Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 5:38 PM
Shelly M #84 & #92: “?¢Ç¨¬¶ These changes in society also explain… We will literally need to be saved from ourselves.”

Thank you for this clarifier of a significant difference in our understanding. Please read my comment to Rory’s excellent post on May 9, 2007 called “This I believe”.

I didn’t want this exchange to become a theological debate, but I believe a major difference between us is that the God I have discovered, and whose love is a constant companion after a lifetime of wonder and search, does not save us *from* ourselves, but rather teaches us in Life with Love how *to be* ourselves.

Hope to see you at the symposium in August. Please introduce yourself. I’m presenting on Thursday afternoon.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Mike, Wow. I’m having difficulty deciding if you are for real or not.

Basically, it sounds like your argument boils down to the fact that you are ticked off that you can’t make fun of Queers and Faggots at your office party. That, and you want to let your aggression run unchecked, play unfair, bully others, and engage in hazing rituals at the college level.

What, did they outlaw “dodge ball” at your local schools?

I’ll probably regret asking this, but what are your “clear gender roles”? Please provide examples.
Mike Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 5:54 PM
So if I may summarize what I hear the proponents saying in favor of this proposal:

1. It’s inevitable
2. It’s enlightened
3. It’s compassionate
4. It’s the duty of the Supreme Court to step in and overturn the voice of the people, IF such people wanted to do something such as practice slavery, that’s their job, (see post 78)

As we all know, slavery of a whole race of people is accompanied by an irrational prejudice, and rooted in an economic advantage for slave owners in the early history of our nation.
Ironically, in the case of slavery, the Supreme Course UPHELD it, see the Dred Scott decision. It is precisely due to the fact that an individual stood up, coupled with the power of our nation behind him, against judicial tyranny, that slavery eventually was done away with, and we know that Abraham Lincoln was that individual, and the Supreme Court was wrong in that decision as they are in this.

Besides, no one is suggesting that we discriminate against homosexuals based upon their skin color – what we ARE suggesting however, is that it is BEHAVIOR that we discriminate against. That is the province of the law, to regulate behavior based upon the best wisdom of our collective values. Why is it that on several occasions now, we have seen attempts to overturn existing law, and in several cases to ignore it and proceed upon individual initiative – with respect to this particular issue? We all know the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, permitted the issuance of marriage licenses to otherwise unqualified homosexual partners, approximately 4,000 of them, – in defiance of the written law. We seem to see a number of folks taking matters into their own hands here – I am aware that lawyers representing the ACLU and the homosexual-rights group Equality California filed a petition asking that voters not be allowed to vote on propostion 8, a duly filed petition signed by over 1 million California voters, (approximately 400,000 more than necessary), in an effort to prevent the express will of the people. Effectively what they want – is legal status with or without voter consent.

They may eventually convince the voters too – and then they may actually enact laws to prevent the freedom of religious expression against those laws. They are so busy fighting AGAINST others who they view as obstructing them, they seem to have forgotten their real fight is within.

In my view if they have to force people to approve of and accept their lifestyle – how much joy will that bring them ultimately? It’s not as though winning marriage certificates magically changes the hearts and minds of people.
Mike Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Matt, you are offensive. I have never uttered those words to any homosexual person I have known, and I bristle at such low-brow comments.

I am not here to educate on gender roles. I am here to educate you that there are differences of opinion on this issue, which all should feel free to express, rather than to accept the monolothic pronouncements of the militant left regarding how we are all to conform to a single viewpoint.

For what it’s worth however, you may wish to study some of Wade Horn’s books on fatherhood, and you may find some other writings on male psychology here and there in your library and on the internet. I am not surprised that you found it difficult to think of or articulate any meaningful differences in gender roles of parents given the political and cultural environment you are dealing with as a modern American.
anon - Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Wow Matt (97) – I can’t believe you unloaded on Mike like that.

Please don’t get so irate, I was actually starting to believe that you were compassionate, and not just egotistical.
Mike Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Lee, please define your understanding of the term “separation of Church and State” and its origin. I see this term bandied about quite a bit, and I think that many people are not really clear on how it came about.

For instance, when Thomas Jefferson died, one of the 3 things he wanted to have inscribed on his tombstone was the fact that he was the author of the Statute of Religious Freedom, part of which I quote here:

“that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, that that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. ”

That seems to me a clear endorsement of the principle of freedom to engage in politics regardless of religious affiliation.
Lee Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 6:44 PM
?¢Ç¨?ìThe experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.?¢Ç¨¬ù
?¢Ç¨ÄùJames Madison, Father of the Constitution and fourth president, letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821
Lee Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 6:45 PM
?¢Ç¨?ìWhen a religion is good, I conceive that it will support, itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.?¢Ç¨¬ù
?¢Ç¨ÄùBenjamin Franklin, inventor, journalist and Founding Father, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780
Lee Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 6:46 PM
?¢Ç¨?ìGovernment has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear, maintain the principles that he believes, worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse, or loss of property, for his religious opinions….?¢Ç¨¬ù
?¢Ç¨ÄùJohn Leland, colonial-era Baptist minister and religious liberty advocate, The Rights of Conscience Inalienable, 1791 pamphlet
Lee Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 6:53 PM
101# Your answer:

“Separation of church and state” is a common metaphor that is well recognized. Equally well recognized is the metaphorical meaning of the church staying out of the state’s business and the state staying out of the church’s business. Because of the very common usage of the “separation of church and state phrase,” most people incorrectly think the phrase is in the constitution. The phrase “wall of separation between the church and the state” was originally coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802. His purpose in this letter was to assuage the fears of the Danbury, Connecticut Baptists, and so he told them that this wall had been erected to protect them. The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church’s business, not to keep the church out of the state’s business.

The constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 7:44 PM
Mike (#99): “Matt, you are offensive.”

Probably. I should have checked my hyperbolic reaction in #97. Unfortunately, I let myself become provoked.

I’m just a little troubled by your worldview, which is very blunt and obtuse, all hard angles, with little or no nuance. You reduce Men, Women, Gays, etc. to cartoonish, lowest-common-denominator stereotypes.

You appear to divide Men into two camps: Real Men and “Wussies”.

Your Real Men come off like real knuckle-draggers… they spread their seed widely, they place their own selfish needs ahead of the environment, they let their aggression run unchecked, and they bully others. (As such, I’m a little surprised that you didn’t stick up for my aggressive, non-wussy reaction in #97?)

Unlike Real Men, men in touch with their feminine side are Wussies. Wow.

Women are nuturers, or caretakers for Men and Children.

Gays are suicidal, depressed, and promiscuous. Furthermore, their motivation for marriage is “gratification of the sexual desire”. Finally, you are “disgusted” by their “insidious” agenda to help promote tolerance and compassion.

Did I get anything wrong? I am basically quoting you in context.

So when you call my comments “offensive”… fine, but isn’t that a little like the pot calling the kettle black? Many Men, Women, and likely most Gays would find these characterizations “offensive.” I did. In any case, my comment was ill-advised, and it won’t happen again.
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Lee, I don’t understand what your position is here. In # 95 you seem to be saying that the Church should stay out of politics and in your multiple later posts (for instance # 105) you point out that the Constitution does not place any restrictions on religions to engage in political action.

I think these posts are getting off point. It is clear that the Church is ENTITLED to take whatever political action it wishes under the United States Constitution. The question is whether it SHOULD. In the case before us (lobbying for a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage in California) I believe it should not. Others will certainly disagree. I’m not sure what you believe.

Mike thinks that in a democracy, the majority should be entitled to pass any law it wants, even if it is discriminatory against a minority. He is basically right, so long as it doesn’t violate a constitutionally protected right. Before the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, for example, the federal government was free to discriminate against African Americans and laws were passed that did just that. Were these laws morally right? I think not. Was Brigham Young legally justified in enacting laws to protect slavery in Utah? Certainly. Was he morally justified? I think not, but I recognize that it is difficult to apply current understandings of morality on the actions of individuals in past generations.

To the point before us: Merely because we have a RIGHT to discriminate against gays, does that mean we SHOULD? For me, the answer is “no.” For Mike the answer is “yes.” Again, I recognize that intelligent people can differ on this.

As the California Constitution is presently written, our state does not have a right to discriminate against gays. That is what the California Supreme Court decided, so it is the law of our state. It was a split decision, however, so again, reasonable minds may reach different conclusions on whether it should be the law. What the Church would now like us to do is override what the California Constitution says and pass a constitutional amendment that makes it permissible to discriminates against gays in the area of marriage. I believe that is morally wrong. Mike and Anon and others would disagree.

Mike feels that the decision by the California Supreme Court inhibits his free exercise of religion. I don’t see that it does. Nothing the Supreme Court has done will require the Church to perform gay marriages. Yes, his company is free to fire him if he engages in boorish behavior in the workplace, but it already has that right under laws that existed well before the Supreme Court’s decision.

Finally, Mike rails at the United States Supreme Court for failing to overturn slavery, claiming that it took an individual (Abraham Lincoln) to do that. This is an oversimplification of history. Remember that the 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) and the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal rights) had not been passed when the Dred Scott decision was issued. Still, I would agree that the Dred Scott decision was wrongly decided. Later Supreme Courts have been much more activist in protecting civil rights — more than some people would like. But here we’re talking about a different court and different judges, so I don’t see that a comparison serves much purpose.

Also remember that Lincoln’s primary purpose in going to war against the seceding states was to save the Union, not to abolish slavery. Fortunately, slavery was ended and the 14th and 14th amendments were passed, and now the United States Supreme Court has laws upon which to base decisions protecting at least some minorities from majority tyranny.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 8th, 2008 at 10:30 PM
Lynne (#96), your comment got hung up in moderation for some reason. Sorry about that. Thank you for sharing your story. I found it very eloquent and powerful.
MoHoHawaii Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 1:43 AM
Re #93 (Shelly M)–

I have heard of men being in prison camps for years and mentally preparing themselves everyday to live another day. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t see where each of us are not capable of living the kind of life we want to lead.

The steeliness of this proclamation scares the living daylights out of me. Your gay son is a whole human being who will someday be capable of expressing love, passion and commitment for a beloved companion. He is not an inmate of a prison camp who must endure each day.

You say:

When I refer to the gay community, I am referring to a group of individuals who are organized, politically active and only want immediate acceptance of illicit behaviors (gay pride parades, porn, etc.)and other activities that are degrading and repulsive. These same activist try to disguise these demands by emulating a community as loving adults who want families and marriage.

Your portrayal is patently, even scandalously, false. There is a tremendous amount of genuine virtue (of the kind recognizable to any ethical human being) in the gay community.

Whether you approve or not does not diminish the intrinsic dignity of our lives.

Speaking from personal experience, I can say that what gay adolescents and young adults need from their parents is love, patience and a listening ear. This is what my LDS parents did for me some twenty years ago, and it made all the difference in my life.
Lee Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 6:30 AM
We should NOT discriminate against gays!

Christ would have his arms open!

There seams to be a lot of fear on behalf of the religous institutions.
Brian Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 6:37 AM
To Lynne:

Thanks for sharing your experience re: prop 22. I have worked with a few gays. Since I knew them and a little about their personal stories and I refused to participate in that effort. My wife did make phone calls, as requested.

My refusal took on greater significance when four years later my gay son came out to us.
anon - Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Lee #12,

Prophets have made it clear to believers that God considers sexual intimacy between people of the same gender to be an abomination.

I am interested to know from those who are in favor of gay marriage – Are you saying that the church should embrace homosexuals and let them marry in the church, or perhaps the temple (as long as they abide by same standards as heterosexuals)? If so, could you agree that your position is: God is not opposed to homosexuality within the bonds of marriage?

Or, alternatively, do you acknowledge that God does consider the sexual acts of homosexuality to be sins whether in or out of a committed relationship (marriage in CA)?

Rick (generally) – I don’t reveal my own opinion because people get carried away and lose focus on the discussion by assuming they know what you think on the basis of who you are. That is lame. I try to focus on the content of the arguments raised, and I expect others to do the same. In fact, I haven’t revealed either who I am, or where I actually stand, yet people have STILL gotten carried away by assumptions. That is counterproductive in my mind.

Also – would you feel better if I called myself Anon44 to distinguish myself from the others? I only care because I don’t want much of an identity – because then, as mentioned, people stop focusing on what your saying (though, at this point, maybe I don’t have much to lose since people seem to do that regardless).
Matt Thurston Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Anon (#114), my answers to your questions:

Yes, my position is “God is not opposed to homosexuality within the bonds of marriage.”

Yes, I would love to see the Church embrace Gays and allow them to marry in the church or temple, but that is just my opinion, my personal testimony. That said, I have never lobbyed for such changes. I recognize the right of the Church to define its own doctrine. I won’t impose my beliefs on the church.

In return, I don’t think it fair that the church take an active role in politics and impose its beliefs on others. I would say the same to Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, etc. We have to share this world with other Believers (and non-Believers). It is one thing for individual Mormons to vote their conscience, to vote against Same Sex Marriage. It is the same for individuals around the country, regardless of their religious affiliation. It is another thing for the Church to actively lobby and/or influence its Members to vote one way or another. This is my primary concern. Please re-read my comments #6 and #13.

And now, a few, sincere questions for you…

1.) How do you think Revelation is received by Prophets? How much communication is flowing between the Prophet and God, and what form does it take?

2.) Do you think it is possible that prophets are sometimes wrong? Or don’t yet understand the big picture? And if they are wrong, how would we know?

3.) What is your explanation for the 1978 Priesthood revelation? A.) Were prophets right in 1977 and in 1978? In other words, God changed his mind and lifted the ban. Or, B.) Were prophets wrong in 1977, but figured it out in 1978, and finally realized God never intended for Whites to exclude Blacks from His church, that the Priesthood Ban was due to limited understanding, prejudicial cultural influence, and years of ingrained and difficult-to-change policy?

Just curious. Thanks.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Anon44 (#114) said, “In fact, I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t revealed either who I am, or where I actually stand, yet people have STILL gotten carried away by assumptions.”

I don’t think people are so much making assumptions about you, as they are responding to your points. If you don’t believe or agree with your own points, but are simply arguing them for rhetorical effect, or for some kind of intellectual exercize, that is your decision, not ours. It is a normal part of conversation to assume the other person means what s/he says, unless s/he prefaces it with some kind of disclaimer.

In any case, why don’t you just say where you stand?
anon - Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Thanks for answering Matt (115). I needed the user-friendly summary.

Here are my answers – though I could and might give them more thought later.

1. I think there is a spectrum of revelation. I’ll call one side “guesses” (best guesses, trial and error, etc.) and the other side would be “eye to eye with God”. Stuff in the middle would include, line upon line, study it out in your mind, this has worked best, the spirit whispered to me, the scriptures say, etc. I think the extremes are more rare: I don’t think they either guess or confer directly with God all that often.

2. I think that if you look back on prophets throughout the ages you could say they are either wrong or limited in their knowledge. The picture is probably bigger than what they see. (McConkie has spoken on this, I believe.) How do we know when they were wrong? For me the answer is: when they admit it, or maybe when they change church policy to contravene prior church policy. Even then, it does not show that they were necessarily wrong – but perhaps that the Lord had not directed or instructed them on a particular point.

3. The blacks in the priesthood thing is difficult, of course. I do believe the “it wasn’t their time” line. I also believe that the membership of the church cannot be “ready” for certain blessings (white members weren’t ready to obey). I readily acknowledge that in many many conversations “blacks in the priesthood” could appear to be replaced with “gays marrying in the temple”. I think there are a few key differences – some of which have been discussed on this board – which make the two totally un-analogizable. (I can expound those difference at a later time, perhaps – if anyone cares.)

I also think that regardless – even if we knew for sure that gays would be married in the temple by 2020, we should still obey the prophet’s counsel today. Shoot me. That is what I believe it takes to be a member of the Mormon faith. I believe that by far and away the majority of the time (like, 99% or more) God would never hold us accountable for following the prophet’s orders – even if later order showed that the prior order to be wrong.

The reason I have such a black and white attitude about all of this is that I think that God is the creator of the church, and that, it must have certain rules to exist and function properly. The church, with as much assistance from God as it can get, writes the rules and makes the definitions for what counts as obedience. I understand the church’s definition of “sustain” to mean recognize and obey. As in, recognize prophets are called of God, and obey their counsel.

A person wouldn’t walk into a complex organization and try to redefine one of their terms of art. (I wouldn’t tell a contractor what a “ship-ticket” is, and by telling him change the definition.) Same with the church – they have spoken on what it means to sustain the prophet – and as members, we are asked to abide by their definition. I take these things on faith. I feel every bit as capable of being critical, uncovering the inconsistencies, discovering the gray zones and looking beyond the viewpoints shared by the bretheren as anyone on this board. But I don’t do it because I have faith. I have faith that they are called of God and faith that if I obey them (even in their shortcomings) I am glorifying God and doing his will.

This is of course, what prompted my first post. I believe that we are in the church and we should play by its rules. Some on this board appear to be trying to be in the church, but play by the world’s rules (I don’t know you, it just seems that way – doesn’t mean you are bad people – I am trying not to judge). Either that, or they are telling the church their business and trying to rewrite the rules from the inside. I decided that I was either go to play along (and I don’t mean to trivialize it by using the word “play”) or not play at all. I confess that I wish other people would make that same choice.
anon - Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 2:46 PM
My reticence in stating where I stand is because people (traditionally) tend to respond to who they think you are rather than what you are actually saying (I am probably guilty of this).

Anyway – my last post explains where I stand. I believe I stand as one who, after taking a long and perilous journey, looks back and says, “turns out that the church was right all along.”

Now I worry that people will respond with assumptions rather than directly dealing with what I say – please, by all means, prove me wrong.
anon - Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 3:43 PM
I should probably clarify that there is room for curiosity as to why we are commanded to do certain things. I also thing one can disagree with commandments received through the prophets. I think that person is still accountable for their obedience. So, sure – I do a lot of thinking about how and why and what if etc., but it doesn’t affect my obedience (personal weaknesses, of course, do affect my obedience). I follow the admonition of the bretheren to think freely and analyze everything I hear, etc. – but that was never intended as a license to disobey.
Shelly M. Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 5:28 PM
If I were to pick something the prophets and leaders have said to disregard or think is wrong, it certainly wouldn’t be something so serious as allowing gay to marry.

We are not obligated to give that title to anyone! No matter how compassionate it my sound. I like what someone said above, “gay relationships are not a part of the plan, because they do not continue the human race…”

The part about us being scared of being asked to perform marriages in our churches and temples, it is already happening – take a look.

Adoption services: Because the Catholic Church in Massachusetts refuses to place children with same-sex couples as required by MA gay marriage law, Catholic Charities has been forced to close its adoption program.

Housing: As a Jewish institution, Yeshiva University in NYC banned same-sex couples from its married dormitory on religious principle. New York’s highest court invalidated the schools regulations as a form of unlawful discrimination..

Medical services: A gynecologist in California refused to give a lesbian patient in vitro fertilization treatment on the basis of his religious beliefs. (The doctor referred the patient to another physician.) The doctor has been sued and is likely to lose.

Wedding services: A photographer in New Mexico declined to shoot a same-sex commitment ceremony. The New Mexico Human Rights Commission fined the photographer $6,600.

Wedding facilities: A Methodist association in New Jersey refused to rent its boardwalk pavilion to a lesbian couple for their civil union ceremony. New Jersey has now revoked a portion of the group?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s tax exemption after the couple sued.

Most Americans believe that gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, but they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have a right to redefine marriage for our entire society. But we are living in an era when adhering to the common sense definition of marriage ?¢Ç¨Äú for the sake of kids ?¢Ç¨Äú is increasingly a punishable offense.
Eugene Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 5:40 PM
To: MoHoHawaii #111

Your honest, perceptive and wise response to Shelly M #93, together with the remarkable on-going energy of this entire thread, reminds me of a dream from years ago, just weeks before Dialogue was first published in 1966.

It occurred near the beginning of a long wilderness period, which resulted from a series of profound, surprising and life changing experiences during the summer of 1965. One of these never-to-be-forgotten experiences was a “revelation” on the Negro, which set in motion the events and circumstances that would lead to my first excommunication in April the next year.

I believe the dream, which occurred on 13 February 1966, is particularly germane to this thread. I will tell it to you and what it has taught and continues to teach me.

At the time I was homeless, having lost everything dear since the previous summer. These losses included family, church, career, possessions, friends, reputation–you name it. I was now searching for new direction.

In the outer world I had just met with a new group of open-minded people, some of whom, unknown to me, were gay.

In the dream I am somewhere in Utah sitting on the ground in an open field without structures with others sitting in a closed circle where a woman is leading the conversation. She turns to me and asks if I am LDS. I answer yes. She then asks others in the group, but with an insistent tone, whether they know of the LDS. I interrupt with intensity to say that the more important question is whether they are at all interested.

The scene changes to a near-by corral-like structure. The woman leader is standing inside the corral preaching to those outside the fence. She speaks of spirituality, spiritual experience, and matters of the spirit in general. I reply energetically that those who speak of spiritual experience in this way are fakes and then proceed to ask penetrating questions, which soon become blunt and angry. Those around me are startled at my intensity. Some, who had once applauded my defending their right to be respected, are now stunned and silent. I soon find myself alone and in pain, but know I must proceed with intense questioning to be true to my convictions and sense of duty. My energy and strength begin to diminish.

Suddenly, I become aware of arms flung around my midriff from behind. It is “L”! She is with me. My strength and courage begin returning?¢Ç¨¬¶.

End of dream.

In the outer world, “L” and I had just met at a metaphysical group setting. She had given me a place of refuge in my wanderings. I did not know it at the time but “L” was a professional Jungian analyst and was thus able to understand the strange things I was saying in those days that so troubled family and church leaders. L was also gay. Eventually she became my second wife and the mother of my fifth son [now a successful documentary film editor in NYC]. Far more than a place of refuge, I began and experiencing and learning from her the meaning of love and self-respect.

The dream, although long ago, continues to provide insights and lessons to be learned, such as in this thread. One of the first lessons I had to learn was to understand the source of my fury with pious LDS church people, especially self-righteous women. A second lesson was to learn how to understand and transcend this fury and integrate its energy. The dream also gave me courage to commit to a relationship with L and learn from her.

Even though L and I legally divorced a few years later, she and our son remain valuable and beloved members of our extended family.

In light of these intimate and enduring family relationships, LDS Church pronouncements such as “The “Proclamation on the Family” with its preoccupation with politics, as well as the 1978 “revelation on the priesthood” all seem contrived and distant issues. It is difficult for me to take them seriously.

What I can take most seriously, however, is the issue of gayness and the struggle gays experience in being understood and accepted in and by the world at large. Would you be surprised or shocked by my assertion that, as the result of my particular experience with L and a remarkable LDS gay man the year previous to our marriage, as well as the example set by my wonderful and sensitive 6th and youngest son, who is also gay, I now believe that the ideal balanced state for human beings is, after all, an “androgynous” mystery.

As Jesus said, “Fear not.”
Matt Thurston Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Shelly, quoting someone else, said “gay relationships are not a part of the plan, because they do not continue the human race…”

So what does that say of married heterosexuals who do not have children, either by choice, or by due to medical circumstances? Does their marriage not count? Should they not be allowed to marry because they will not, or cannot, continue the human race?

Shelly said, “common sense definition of marriage ?¢Ç¨Äú for the sake of kids”

Clearly marriage is seen today as having extremely important functions beyond the mere production of offspring. As to the ?¢Ç¨?ìnurturing?¢Ç¨¬ù aspect, it is undoubtedly true that a loving marital relationship is the ideal for nurturing children, but we validate single-parent families in the Church (both those that are unavoidable and those that are the product of divorce). Who is to say that a loving long-term same-sex couple cannot provide at least the same quality of nurturing (and perhaps even better) than single parents?
Shelly M. Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Matt, you never look past “today”. The gospel of Jesus Christ has provisions for childless couples in the next life. The standard is for families in the gospel of Jesus Christ is for hetersexual couples, not homosexual couples.

Gays have been around for a long time, and somehow, 4000 years later, we think society has it all wrong and we need to change the definition of marriage.

After reading the posts here, it is obvious that everyone wants to believe what they have experienced is the “truth”. As for me, I’ll stick to the gospel of Jesus Christ and take my chances.

I am certainly wasting my time on this board. There are more bigots here than the closed minded LDS.
anon Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Matt,

Marriage is eternal – and has as a central purpose infinite and eternal offspring – all of the scenarios you described aren’t denied those eventual blessings. Gays on the other hand, don’t have the essential equipment (body and soul) to accomplish that crucial eternal purpose.

Mine is an obvious response to your post, but it also underscores one of the reasons why gays marrying in the temple isn’t like blacks having the priesthood.

With blacks and the priesthood, it was because of something that happened in the past. With gays, it has to do with what can’t be done in the future.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 8:28 PM
“4000 years later”

Um…later than what? Sorry, I’m lost.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 8:32 PM
anon, attributing the ban on blacks participating in the church to “something that happened in the past” is horribly naive of the history.

Perhaps this is why the two cases look so disimilar to you.
Eugene Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Shelley #124, you say: “I am certainly wasting my time on this board. There are more bigots here than the closed minded LDS.”

Did you enter this board to preach or to learn? You remind me of the woman in my 1966 dream. [See #121] Did that pass you by? And, has it never occurred to you that your version of “the gospel of Jesus Christ” may in fact NOT be what Jesus of Nazareth taught?
Mary Danzig Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Matt, thank you for your thoughtful post. I really wouldn’t know what to tell a bishop because my experience trying to talk to church leaders about this issue was traumatizing. So, what ever I said, don’t say that:)
There are a lot of people expressing what they would like to say to a bishop over on http://www.signforsomething.org. Some of the letters you might not agree with, but there are some really thoughtful ones that might give you ideas.
anon Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Rick

Elaborate on “horribly naive” – I am speaking of the asserted doctrinal basis. They attributed blacks not being entitled to the priesthood to a curse that happened because of something in the past.

I think we must be talking over eachother here – because the doctrinal basis for the ban was backward looking, not forward looking.

I love the part where you say “horribly naive” – it is almost caricature-like in its condescension. I am sure you are not as huffy, smug, appalled and elitist as you sounded in that last comment. (I am not mad, by the way. Though I’ll happily act that way if it will satisfy you, since I see little other motive in your responses to me.)

Throw me a bone here – (a phrase not used lightly when discussing this subject matter) – will no one respond to my arguments?
Rick Jepson Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Sorry that my response was out of line. I was actually surprised by your statement because I honestly didn’t think people really still believed in either of the two myths you might have been referring to: 1. curse of cain or 2. fence-sitting in the pre-existence.

If you really believe that cain was cursed with black skin and that contemporary black people are his descendents, then I can understand why you don’t recognize parallels between the Church’s previous racist ban and current feelings about homosexuality, women, etc.

But also, if you accept that folklore as actual history and as an acceptable basis of the church’s descrimination, I don’t know that we’ll end up understanding each other on very much of anything. Although I’d certainly still like to try.

Another possibility is that I misunderstood you entirely. If so, let me know.

I’d also argue that even in the context of your position, you’re clearly wrong: church members definately look backward when they discuss homosexuality. All of the talk of an established pattern between a man and a woman, etc. That’s all looking at the Garden of Eden as a literal, historical account and using it as THE proof text for what “marriage” means.

Or like Shelly says, something apparently happened 4000 years ago that’s very important to this discussion.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 9th, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Mary D., you’re not related to Peter Danzig are you? He was in my ward in the avenues years ago and was a wonderful friend and tremendous influence on me. I’m still very much touched by our brief acquaintance.

If you’re his relation, please tell him I say hello. (And he’ll say, “Who the hell is Rick Jepson?”)
Rick Jepson Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 12:15 AM
anon, I appreciate what you’ve posted in the discussion above. But you’ve accused people like me of trying to re-define the church rules or trying to act above the rules (or the leadership).

The thread doesn’t seem to me to be about that at all, but instead about what to do when you find yourself in the horrible, painful situation of being at complete odds with the church you love and otherwise feel a part of.

This new announcement–that I should be voting a certain way and dedicating my time and money to convince others to do so–has been very, very hard for me. I love the gospel and the church and would never, never want to be separated from it or to lose my ability to attend the temple, to bless my children, etc.

In the past the Church had an obvious stand on homosexual marriage that I disagreed with. I made it a point not to discuss my dissent and instead quietly voted my conscience. Now I’m being compelled to a whole new level…to a point that compliance would make me feel like a hypocrite, a coward, and a liar.

This is overwhelming for me. And I want to find my way through it as best I can. I have no desire to protest outside of temple square, to stomp out of meetings, or to force the temple doors open to homosexual marriage.

I also don’t profess to fully understand the issue on any level (biologically, socially, legally, etc.) and can certainly concede that I may end up being wrong.

But to say that someone like me is just trying to re-write or throw out rules is it’s own charicature…and I believe it’s used deliberately to reinforce your positive opinion of your own stand.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 12:18 AM
“Throw me a bone here – (a phrase not used lightly when discussing this subject matter)”

Wow. Classy.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 12:41 AM
anon, for a good discussion on our church’s history on race, check out

http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/some-thoughts-on-racismchris-buttars/

A little too much emphasis on C. Buttars. But read the whole thread to find some wonderful insight into this unfortunate history. Perhaps then you’ll understand my drawing parallels to our current culturally-driven stands on women and homosexuals.
anon Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Okay, okay – I’m out of my league. This thing has run its course for now.

Matt, I sympathize with your plight. When the Lord says things through his prophets, it is for a reason. I’ve worked hard to understand those reasons. If I were in your plight I would start with the assumption that the first presidency is completely right, and that you are completely wrong – then, just focus my efforts on understanding why. (Eugene probably has a dream to correpsond to the attitude I am displaying – or a nightmare.)

Rick- any number of my gay friends would have applauded my joke. later.
Eugene Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Nice try on the dream thing, anon #135. Keep smiling. I would be more interested in YOUR dreams regarding these issues than in trashing mine. Dreams bypass egos. That is their value, nightmares included. Can you not stay the course?
Mary Danzig Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Hi Rick! There were two Peters in the avenues ward. One Peter is my father in law and the other is my husband. I grew up in that same ward in the avenues so maybe our paths crossed to? I will pass on the greeting to both of them. I know they will be glad to hear from you.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 2:07 PM
Mary,

It was your father that I knew. But I believe I met you and your husband and daughter when the three of you played a wonderful violen trio at a ward event. I also read with some sadness an article in the SL Trib covering your struggle with this same issue.

Please do tell your father that I say hello. My wife and I were newlywed dummies (the way only newlyweds can be) and taught gospel doctrine in the ward. If he’d like, I’d love to hear from him at jepsonrick at hotmail dot com.

He’s been an interesting figure for me because as the years go on, I appreciate and understand him more and more.

–Rick
Matt Thurston Says:
July 10th, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Anon (#117), I share your view of revelation, though I lean more heavy towards the “guesses” and “middle” (i.e. study out in mind) side of the spectrum. I’m not sure about the eye-to-eye stuff. I guess I don’t think prophets receive revelation any different than we do. That isn’t to say they aren’t receiving revelation on behalf of the church, I just think the channels of communication to the heavens are open for everyone, on any subject, including the one we’ve been discussing in this thread.

Your possible reasons for the Black/PH Ban are problematic: “I do believe the ‘it wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t their time’ line. I also believe that the membership of the church cannot be ‘ready’ for certain blessings (white members weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ready to obey).

It esteems whites above blacks. It makes blacks supporting players in the story of the whites. The whites weren’t ready? So let’s penalize the blacks? No, can’t accept that. And it makes no sense. Since when does God wait for people to be “ready”?

Were the early Saints ready for the Law of Consecration? Didn’t matter, God ostensibly commanded it. Were they ready for Plural Marriage? No, an angel with a flaming sword commanded it upon penalty of death. And polyamy was afar greater leap of faith for puritanical 18th century Mormons than accepting blacks into full fellowship in the church would have been. Was Nephi ready? Was Abraham ready? Was Moses ready? Was Jonah ready? The examples are endless.

“I believe that by far and away the majority of the time (like, 99% or more) God would never hold us accountable for following the prophet?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s orders – even if later order showed that the prior order to be wrong.”

I disagree, which is what this blog post is about in the first place. I cannot go against the burning of my conscience/spirit. Like the Orson Pratt quote I reference in #65, “I will be a free man… If I die tonight, I would say, O Lord God Almighty, I believe what I say.”

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this conversation.
Jason Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 6:42 AM
Matt – #139

I don’t mean this flippantly, but why should we even have prophets at all if it’s okay to simply disregard their counsel when we strongly disagree with it and believe the spirit or our conscience is leading us another way?

Perhaps it is an oversimplification of the issues we face in this complex world, but I tend to believe the Lord’s words in the Doctrine & Covenants where he stated that whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants the prophets, it is the same. I also believe, as Wilford Woodruff taught, that the Lord will not allow his prophets to lead the people astray. “It is not in the program.” I think this disproves your apparent “disagree[ment]” with anon that God might hold us accountable for following the prophet.

That being said, I’m fine if people have an opposing view and cannot subscribe to my view of things. And I’m perfectly comfortable with the conclusion that, in the end, neither viewpoint will be deemed “wrong.”
anon Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Sorry this is a long goodbye, but Matt (139) was responsive enough that I feel like responding. First, Jason, (140) I totally agree with what you said, but if that viewpoint were accepted here, there would be no “here” and we’d all be posting on a sports-related discussion board like the good Lord intended.

Matt – as much as I appreciate that you responded directly to my comments, your response illustrates one thing I don’t like about this board. It seems like you are more interested in proving me wrong, or disproving my arguments, than you are in giving them any kind of reasoned consideration.

You said:

Your possible reasons for the Black/PH Ban are problematic: ?¢Ç¨?ìI do believe the ?¢Ç¨Àúit wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t their time?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ line. I also believe that the membership of the church cannot be ?¢Ç¨Àúready?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ for certain blessings (white members weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ready to obey).

It esteems whites above blacks. It makes blacks supporting players in the story of the whites. The whites weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ready? So let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s penalize the blacks? No, can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t accept that. And it makes no sense. Since when does God wait for people to be ?¢Ç¨?ìready?¢Ç¨¬ù?

Were the early Saints ready for the Law of Consecration? Didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t matter, God ostensibly commanded it. Were they ready for Plural Marriage? No, an angel with a flaming sword commanded it upon penalty of death. And polyamy was afar greater leap of faith for puritanical 18th century Mormons than accepting blacks into full fellowship in the church would have been. Was Nephi ready? Was Abraham ready? Was Moses ready? Was Jonah ready? The examples are endless.

—

Matt, why didn’t you bother providing any examples that support my point? Are there none? Are you more interested in proving me wrong than you are at studying out what I am trying to say?

Weren’t the gentiles (at least at first) supporting players in a story about Jews? Is God’s timing for dispensing the gospel a matter of “esteem” or superiority? What of all the people in the dark ages – didn’t he love them? You’re a smart guy Matt – surely these questions didn’t escape you.

This goes to the heart of why I say that I am out of my league here. In my hypothetical “league” of discussion participants – we don’t compete, we evaluate together.

You said: Since when does God wait for people to be “ready”?

Surely, among the many examples you could have thought of, you recall this scripture in Alma:

10] And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

[11] And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

I was suggesting that perhaps the Lord withheld from us his word: the privilege of opening the priesthood to all worthy males, because the church’s membership had too hard of hearts to receive that portion of the word. (this, of course, could be wielded in support of your gay marriage stance)

There are plenty of examples: the word of wisdom wasn’t given on the first day of the church’s organization, and remarkably, it wasn’t really enforced until decades later. At very least, it shows that people aren’t ready for certain commandments and corresponding blessings. The Lord will bring his people along until they are ready to believe and receive more. (vicarious work for the dead, Joseph receiving the plates, all the things in section 76 which Joseph and Sidney couldn’t tell us- I’m just thinking outloud here)

What about polygamy and consecration? Don’t both of those examples show what happens when the Lord gives commandments that we aren’t ready to receive and obey? That supports MY argument – not yours. We couldn’t obey them – we, and our society, weren’t ready. Having demonstrated such and incompetence for receiving and believing, I’m just glad we finally did get the blessing of extending priesthood to every worthy male.

Anyway – the blacks, the gays, – it is problematic. It is a test of faith. I understand and feel your dilemma now, and I am sure that those thoughts and feelings would be greatly intensified if one of my own had same-gender attraction. But I can’t see how any of those painful convictions would affect my disposition towards obeying men who I believe are called of God and speak on his behalf.

(no time to edit)
Jason Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:18 AM
It has been a fun read and enlightening in many respects. I guess, like anon, I feel at a disadvantage when trying to support my position because the only things I really have to fall back on are the scriptures and the words of the prophets (which I believe are in theory supposed to be the same thing).

For example, my post #140 could easily be discredited because both of the sources I cite in support of my position – the D&C and Wilford Woodruff – are simply prophetic statements. (I had thought the D&C was pretty much understood as being the Lord’s voice for the most part, but it was really just communicated to Joseph Smith, who was, after all, just a prophet like Thomas S. Monson.) I suppose that gives us license to discredit the pronouncement in D&C 1 that, whether by mine own voice or the voice of my servants it is the same (if we believe the spirit or our conscience is leading us in a different direction).

From my perspective, that leads us down a rocky path. I do not believe the Spirit will lead us astray from the counsel the prophets have given us. I think there is still some wiggle room. Nephi could be cited, along with others, as an individual who was legitimately inspired by the Spirit to do something inimical to clearly stated commandments (killing Laban). I am not prepared to put myself on par with Laban, and I believe those are the very rare exceptions, not the rule.

I could go own, but I better get to work.
Jason Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Edit to #142

Should read “I am not prepared to put myself on par with NEPHI.”

I also do not wish to be put on par with Laban because I value the fact that my head is attached to my body…
Matt Thurston Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Jason and Anon, this all boils down to the fallibility or limitations of prophets. There will never be a perfect answer. There are rules, and exceptions to the rules. There are examples, and exceptions to the examples. This is one of those paradoxes, or what Gene England called “proving contraries,” and solving the paradox, or proving the contrary, is one of the purposes of this life, I think. We will all come to different answers.

You both feel “centered,” or “peaceful,” or “at right with the world/universe,” when your views are in accordance with the prophet. You feel validated. I understand that.

I tried for years, but couldn’t pretzel my thoughts and feelings on a number of subjects to make them line up with the views of the prophet. My head/heart/spirit said one thing, the prophet said another. Living your life according to certain ideals you feel no positive emotion or testimony for is a bizarre experience. You feel empty, and worse.

Once I made the scary decision to trust in God and myself, to weigh information received from all sources equally, the emptiness was filled with light, something the church calls a “burning in the bosom.”

If there is a next life, and it turns out you were both right, and I was sadly deluded, I will gladly embrace my shack in the Telestial Kingdom with the other “less valient” souls of the world. I will harbor no ill will for your mansions in the Celestial Kingdom. That is because, to truly own oneself, I’ve found there is no price high enough that I wouldn’t be willing to pay. Not even death. Free agency is that fundamental.

Fortunately, enough of my personal testimony re the “purpose of life” lines up with my inherited faith tradition (Mormonism), that I still consider myself an active member of that family.

Interestingly enough, Times & Seasons is engaged in a discussion along these same lines. One of the quotes almost sounds like Anon wrote it. It will be interesting to see how that discussion plays out…
anon - Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Thanks for sharing Matt. I think that is a respectable job of explaining the irreconcilable differences (though I trust our similarities are still so numerous as to make us friends). I did not post on Times and Seasons, but I am totally curious about which brilliant, considerate, irrefutable and I dare say poetic comment is mine. Do tell.

There are many points in my previous posts that I would love to have you respond to – but, one could spend all day on here. Sorry I can’t get to everything in your post, either.

In other news- I knew you and I would never agree when you called Mormonism your “inherited faith tradition.” You can probably guess that I consider it more than that (namely, the truth as it actually exists in the universe).

One funny thing you said:

Once I made the scary decision to trust in God and myself, to weigh information received from all sources equally, the emptiness was filled with light, something the church calls a ?¢Ç¨?ìburning in the bosom.?¢Ç¨¬ù

The application of this exact same formula to my life has led me again and again to the same answers. You never said it didn’t. But, I just wanted you to know that sunstone doesn’t have a monopoly on conscientious, searching, fearless, “owning oneself,” members of the church. You never said it did.

There is an absolute brilliance, goodness, light and general “rightness” in the church and the church leadership which I feel has been completely ignored – even to an intellectually dishonest extent – by the sunstone crowd. That is a generalization, I know – but I have been so richly blessed by embracing the visions of Christ and his gospel as expressed by church leaders that I would love to have everyone experience the same blessings. Alas – you, and others appear unwilling to accept that there is a higher intelligence and design at work in the leadership of the church.

Sometimes I wish we had more time or opportunity to discuss this stuff.
anon - Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Matt – it comment 21 on the other board? Wasn’t me, but you got to admit the guy has a point. (I have a sneaking suspicion that your not about to concede that.)
Rick Jepson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:00 PM
When you put down the “sunstone crowd”, can I just ask if you’ve ever been to a symposium or how regularly you read the journal? My guesses are 1. never, and 2. once or twice in your life.

I fully recognize the intelligence and design of church leadership and I don’t believe that every organization can or should be a democracy. I can’t even imagine an army batallion or a football team working without people giving up their own opinions/convictions and following their leaders. I assume that Matt feels the same way on this and that the other “sunstone crowd” largely does as well.

At the same time, there are certain issues that are so significant personally that it challenges my conviction to step in line. This is doubly painful because I do believe that I’m sinning by disobeying….but still feel compelled by my own convictions to disobey.

(It’s like Huck Finn not turning in Jim to the authorities even though he knows he’s sinning by not complying and that he’ll go to hell for it.)

The plain truth that you keep ignoring, though is that the church has been wrong before and may be wrong on this issue or on others. It doesn’t take much reading at all on the history of the racist policy to see that it was cultural and that it was folly. Even before it was lifted, Pr. Kimball referred to it as a “possible error” and said that the church could be forgiven for it by the Lord. And Pr. Hinkley said on 60 minutes that the policy was due to the way the “brethren interpreted that doctrine at that time.”

If it can happen before, it can certainly happen now. It may also be that there is a lot at stake here and that if a gay couple gets married in California we’ll end up with huge repercussions (like the crazy ACLU crap that Shelly refers to in the above discussion).

As I said, my policy when I disagree with the brethren is to bite my tongue at church and vote my conscience in the booth. But I do believe there is a place for member activism and certainly for questioning current policy and practice. And revelation is clearly a two-way street….messages are sent bottom up just as much as they go bottom down (if you don’t believe me, just ask yourself how many mormons you know that use birth control).

In fact, the entire conservative side of the churh completely ignores everything Pr. Kimball decried in “The False Gods We Worship” (environmental destruction, military buildup, worrying about your financial portfolio, etc.) and have great excuses about how this or that isn’t what Kimball REALLY meant, or blah blah blah about in a perfect world, maybe, but not here and now. So, we don’t consider it a “revelation” to stop building up arms, stop trashing the earth, etc.

There is no question that the same liberal mormons that you denigrate (and that even Pr. Kimball seemed to get sick of: “smart mormons”) have done a lot of good. Their work CLEARLY had a major influence on the church. They also clearly have their own set of hypocricies. But they’re also a great deal less homogenous and despicable than you seem to tthink.
anon - Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Rick, that was the exact tirade I was hoping to avoid by typing “That is a generalization, I know-”. I should have been more explicit in my disclaimer.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Mike, I missed your response in the flood of posts.

Can I assume, then, that you’d support a movement to legalize polygamy?

Anon, same question for you.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Anon, “tirade”? Really? Maybe you take this a little more personally than you profess.

If you knew it was a generalization, why bother with it?
anon - Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
Matt – you were probably referring to the daily universe quote. ouch – not me.

Rick- still not taking this personally.
Eugene Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:30 PM
To Jason #142: you say, “?¢Ç¨¬¶like anon, I feel at a disadvantage when trying to support my position because the only things I really have to fall back on are the scriptures and the words of the prophets (which I believe are in theory supposed to be the same thing).”

Jason, when one has personal experiences that are like those described in the scriptures–or even NOT found in the scriptures, one is generally faced with new decisions on how to navigate life. If one’s comprehension of reality changes as a result, namely becoming aware of a new inner sense of authority, one usually must make decisions that others may not understand or approve of. This is all a part of being true to one’s own conscience versus that of others, whether they are parents, friends or church leaders and whether or not they are dead or living prophets. As you say, it can be a “rocky path”.

I think there are many in these blog conversations that are treading such “rocky path” experiences. I am one of them. But, I am not interested in imposing my understanding on anyone else, although I realize I may be more willing than most to share and become vulnerable. I am, nevertheless, willing to discuss things from a different perspective and always open and interested to know the experiences of others in the belief that there is always something to be learned. I would not dare invalidate the experience of another, although I may question it to find understanding. For example, consider someone’s dream. I see dreams in general as ultimately sacred to the dreamer, i.e., a creation of the soul. It is no other person’s right to denigrate or trash that experience. Question it, yes, but not dismiss it. This to me is a variation of “Faith seeking understanding.”
anon - Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 2:56 PM
http://www.timesandseasons.org/?p=4634

Well said.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 3:07 PM
How could anyone claim to be a faithful mormon but not accept revelation through dreams?
Matt Thurston Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Anon said, “The application of this exact same formula to my life has led me again and again to the same answers.”

I know, and basically said as much when I said: You both feel ?¢Ç¨?ìcentered,?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìpeaceful,?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìat right with the world/universe,?¢Ç¨¬ù when your views are in accordance with the prophet. You feel validated. I understand that.

Such a feeling of peace and centeredness comes from application of the formula.

Anon said, “There is an absolute brilliance, goodness, light and general ?¢Ç¨?ìrightness?¢Ç¨¬ù in the church and the church leadership which I feel has been completely ignored – even to an intellectually dishonest extent – by the sunstone crowd.

I know, which is why I remain active in the church. And you’ve greatly mischaracterized the Sunstone crowd. Sunstone exists because of its love of Mormonism. Whether some of the “Sunstone Crowd” always agrees with this or that policy or doctrine is beside the point. I’d be surprised if you came to a symposium and didn’t enjoy the diversity of the people and the presentations.

Anon said, “I knew you and I would never agree when you called Mormonism your ?¢Ç¨?ìinherited faith tradition.?¢Ç¨¬ù You can probably guess that I consider it more than that (namely, the truth as it actually exists in the universe).”

I cannot escape the fact that I was born into Mormonism. Had I not been born in Mormonism, I would have different beliefs today. Why is that hard to understand?

I’ve studied enough other faiths to see their inherent goodness and understand the circular logic of their truth/faith claims.

We have to be humble enough to recognize that “chance” plays a role in determining our beliefs. Had you been born a Jew, with the same loving support system you have now; and had you applied yourself with the same diligence to that faith, you’d likely be a believing Jew today.

It is no different than the love you have for your spouse, assuming you are married. Yes, you love that person with all your heart. But had you not married your spouse, you would have found someone else who filled your heart with the same degree of love.

We open our hearts to people, to propositions, to institutions, to truth… and whatever “it” is comes rushing in to fill the empty contours, and it fills us up to the rim. We say, “I am completely full, there can be no greater love, no greater truth, no greater ______.” But it is that feeling of “fullness” that is universal, not the specific truth, not the specific person.

If Rick’s comment #147 was a “tirade”, then how would you characterize my comment #99? Come on, Rick’s comment was a perfectly benign response.
Nate Housley Says:
July 11th, 2008 at 8:41 PM
There’s a lot of responses here. From my skimming, I’m not posting anything terribly redundant, so here goes.

First, I don’t see any problem with voting religiously. I believe in the separation of church and state, but saying that a religious conviction should not bear on an individual’s choice while holding that an intellectual or any other type of conviction should is inconsistent.

Secondly, let’s call the amendment what it is: a statement. It has little to no bearing on the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children (domestic partnerships are legal in California), so the idea that the amendment would guarantee the right of unborn children to a traditional marriage is unfounded. The Church is making a statement, using the law to promote a social value. If you don’t agree with that, you have to disagree with the opposition as well, who are doing the same thing to promote their own social value (acceptance).

Casting the Church as uncompassionate is inaccurate. The Church has taught, does teach, and always will teach compassion to all children of our Heavenly Father. While it frustrates contemporary thinking, I don’t see an incongruity in being compassionate on a personal level and being uncompassionate (I do think the amendment is uncompassionate) on a public level.

Seeing the amendment as a statement makes it easier for me to (hypothetically, since I don’t live in CA) support it. I can take the First Presidency’s word for it that such a statement has merit, even if only for clearing our society of sin for the afterlife.

At the same time, if I may be so audacious as to tell the Church its business, I think there is a critical distinction to be made when dealing with homosexuality. On the one hand, you have legitimate sexual freaks, who purposefully pursue sexual taboos for pleasure. On the other hand, you have those attracted to the same sex (biological? psychological? I don’t think it really matters) who want to be in a committed relationship. If I were the Church, I would support committed same-sex relationships and condemn sexual hedonism of all stripes.

As far as homosexuality being a sin, isn’t fornication as well? And if a marriage isn’t sealed by the Priesthood, isn’t that a kind of fornication? But the Church recognizes legal (officiated by the state) heterosexual marriages, allowing those in such relationships to enjoy full fellowship in the Church. Why should it be different with homosexuality?
sue Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 4:43 AM
Ah that would be right…homosexual marriages get legalised and support way before considering giving priesthood to women…because our concept of what is right and what is equal is just so skewed. I’ve yet to hear a single LDS commentary on this that uses the word lesbian…come on…there ARE female same sex couples out there.

I have a good idea why your wife said don’t make waves and stay silent. She does it a lot huh. It all works out in the end…well yes…I guess so..there are pros and cons to being silent…so we’ve learned. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s tacitly accepting the unjust and unequal status quo. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s agreeing to live with systemic cancer. It’s knowing your husband has a gay care package, but as for women…well why transform their lives and alleviate conditions that bring about their suffering…what suffering? They don’t suffer from impotence…it’s a man thing.

You’re a goat.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Sue, I’m sorry for all that you’ve endured. I think, however, that your anger is misplaced in your post.

I have, for example, included lesbian couples under the umbrella of of “homosexual marriage” or “gay marriage” throughout the thread. And I’m quite sure that everyone else has as well. The term “homosexual” is clearly not gender-exclusive.

Sunstone in general has also been quite progressive and forceful in its discussion of women and the obvious problems we have with gender exclusion in our church structure. There was, in fact, an entire issue dedicated to it earlier this year (and there’s never been a full issue dedicated to homosexual issues).

The truth is that I’m much more hurt and frustrated by the limited roll of women in the church than I am about the church’s encouragement to block homosexual marriage.

It’s more personal. I belong to a bright, beautiful, independent wife and we’ve got a bright, beautiful, independent daughter of six years…..so these problems weigh heavily on my mind.

So while I may be an a-hole or a troublemaker or a jerk or a lazy S-O-B. I hope you’ll reconsider calling me (or Matt, or whomever you were attacking) a goat.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Sue, I’ve mostly used gender-neutral terminology like “gay” and “same sex attraction” throughout the post and subsequent comments on purpose to apply to both gay men and women. According to Wikipedia, “While gay applies in some contexts to all homosexual people, the term lesbian is sex-specific: it is used exclusively to describe gay women.”

I’m not sure why you are conflating the women/priesthood issue with the gay marriage issue? Both are important issues, but this post is about gay marriage.

Finally, you make assumptions about my wife and I out of thin air. How can you possibly know how she or I feel about the status of women and the church? For all you know, I could be your ally? Or I could be a raving misogynist, but determining my opinion on that issue from this post is no different than trying to determine my favorite flavor of ice cream.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 9:54 AM
Matt, I have a deep impression from your posts that your favorite flavor of ice cream is mint chocolate chip. And I hate you for that.

: )
Matt Thurston Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 11:23 AM
The shocker is that mint chocolate chip IS my favorite flavor of ice cream! I made home-made mint choc chip just last Sunday!
Rick Jepson Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 11:37 AM
See, I can divine all kinds of horrible things about you so I have every right to make wild ASSumptions, call you a goat, etc.

you and your damn mint chocolate chip. All REAL mormons go for rocky road and if you dont’ get that, I suppose this discussion has run its course.
Eugene Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Amen to #162, Rick! A Rocky Road it is indeed!! ‘Tis my favorite, even when I choke on it.

Re: Comment #154. “How could anyone claim to be a faithful mormon [sic] but not accept revelation through dreams?”

Great question! I have asked this question for decades, believing that our people would surely welcome a serious study and application of the subject. Actually, I have found that regular Mormon folks are generally open to techniques that allow them understand their dreams and find it useful. To my dismay the leadership seems frightened by it! Nevertheless, I still believe that such a study and understanding would do much to alleviate the distress we are collectively feeling about gay marriage, to say nothing about polygamous marriage and the principle behind the “Proclamation”–or any other difficult issue!

GLH and I will be discussing your question and more in our back-to-back papers at the upcoming symposium.
Mary Ellen Says:
July 13th, 2008 at 11:18 AM
Re: Sue’s comment #157

You raise a good point–that the language used in our conversation about same sex marriage is gendered in a way that often excludes/erases lesbians. You’re right; we shouldn’t do that.

Which is why, way back in comment #5, I suggested Matt include women’s voices and stories in his Care Package and referred him to the Affirmation web site where he could find some.

However, I thought your speculations about Matt’s wife, her views and their relationship dynamics were unfair.
LG Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 7:08 AM
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long held to the doctrine of separation of church and state originating in part from the long antagonism local and state governments have had towards their faith. Mormon writings have affirmed ?¢Ç¨?ì[n]o domination of the state by the church; No church interference with the functions of the state; No state interference with the functions of the church, or with the free exercise of religion; The absolute freedom of the individual from the domination of ecclesiastical authority in political affairs; The equality of all churches before the law. The Church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s official Articles of Faith, which outline the basic beliefs of the church, state that: ?¢Ç¨?ìWe believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law?¢Ç¨¬ù.[1] [2]

1. Clark, James R. (1965). ?¢Ç¨?ìMessages of the First Presidency?¢Ç¨¬ù. Brigham Young University, Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations. Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
2. ^ ?¢Ç¨?ìPolitical Neutrality?¢Ç¨¬ù. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (2006). Retrieved on 2006-11-30.
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Define “separation”

If you mean, for instance, that government officials should not pray on the job, or that the Ten Commandments is a violation of the principle, I say, you are forgetting that the founding fathers prayed and quoted the bible and held days of fasting and sent missionaries to the Indians.
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:39 PM
>>Mike feels that the decision by the California Supreme Court inhibits his free exercise of religion. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t see that it does. Nothing the Supreme Court has done will require the Church to perform gay marriages. Yes, his company is free to fire him if he engages in boorish behavior in the workplace, but it already has that right under laws that existed well before the Supreme Court?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s decision.<<<<

This sums it up for me. Defining religious belief as “boorish” and then proceeding to terminate employment is discriminatory and defeats what this country was founded for – religious freedom.

And to have people blithely caricaturize my arguments is EXACTLY why you can’t have a straight discussion with liberal leftists. Instead of responding to your argument with substantive comments, they call you names, and characterize you as too mean, cartoonish, boorish, etc, to be permitted to engage the subject.
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Claiming that the gay marriage issue is a civil rights issue is misidentification. Gays have a right to marry already, they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like I can.

They want to introduce new behavior, and have that behavior sanctioned by the nation. Furthermore, they have chosen behavior that many people believe is immoral and repugnant and against the religious beliefs of many.
Still, in a democracy, the majority rule, and it was actually put to a vote.

But that wasn’t sufficient for the power hungry ideologous, who prop up and promote this idea, not only for the 3 percent of the people who could possibly benefit from it, but to shore up their flagging political support.

If it weren’t for the fact that people are free to believe what they will and that judicial activism seeks to enslave us to laws not of our own devising, then I’d say the law should pass.

But it didn’t. The legislature passed the law, the people voted on it, and a handful of liberal leftist lawyers decided to filibuster on the bench.

It is wrong to force religious freedom to bow to the gods of political correctness and materialistic philosophies of men.
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:03 PM
Do I have a right in America to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

Do I have a right in America to believe that homosexuality is sub-optimal for survival of the species?

Do I have a right in America to believe that sexual urges are subordinate to other pro-survival urges such as the family unit?

Do I have a right in America to think and to express my opinion on an equal footing with other people, that homosexual marriages are detrimental to family life and society?

Do I have a right in America to frankly discuss my opinions that homosexuality is a dysfunctional behavior?

Do I have a right in America to believe and express my opinion, wherever I may be, that homosexuality can be overcome, that it may be an immature stage of development that some people are stuck in?

Or – am I forced to accept other’s opinions who happen to disagree with me, and do I have to be silenced, legally shut down, and possibly removed from my place of employment and / or have my religious belief curtailed because some others wish to have their behavior classified/categorized as irreproachable ?
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 2:07 PM
If a man kills a black man, is that a de facto hate crime? Is it racist?

If a man kills a gay man, is that a de facto hate crime? Is it homophobic?

If a man kills a gay black woman, what is the motive? Racism? Homophobia? Sexism? All three? Should the penalty be tripled? Or is a crime, a crime, regardless of the motive?

And how do you tell?
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
>>To the point before us: Merely because we have a RIGHT to discriminate against gays, does that mean we SHOULD? For me, the answer is ?¢Ç¨?ìno.?¢Ç¨¬ù For Mike the answer is ?¢Ç¨?ìyes.?¢Ç¨¬ù Again, I recognize that intelligent people can differ on this.<<<<

The issue is not discrimination. Gays have a right to marry, the same way all the rest of us do.

If you redefine marriage to suit the sexual tastes of a few, then how do you take a principled stand against polygamy? How do you take a principled stand against threesomes? How do take a principled stand against bestiality?

And then, how do you go about limiting the rights of other people who have those pesky religious beliefs that such things are immoral and detrimental to society and the family unit? And WHY ?

There are reasons God created men and women – and there are reasons why sexual tastes don’t always develop in a mature fashion. And what this law says is – not only do you have to ‘tolerate’ gay marriage, you have to change your beliefs about it. You are compelled by law to believe that gay marriage is natural, normal, and above criticism – or suffer the legal penalties – lose your job, be sued and pay civil penalties and fines – and this – because we now have determined that certain sexual behaviors are protected by the thought police.

It’s Orwellian.
Mike Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Regarding the separation of Church and State:

“The reaffirmation of this doctrine and policy, however, is predicated upon the express understanding that politics in the states where our people reside, shall be conducted as in other parts of the Union; that there shall be NO INTERFERENCE BY THE STATE with the Church, nor with the free exercise of religion. Should political parties make war upon the Church, or MENACE the civil, political, or RELIGIOUS RIGHTS of its members as such,-against a policy of that kind, by any political party or set of men whatsoever, we assert the inherent right of self-preservation for the Church, and her right and duty to call upon all her children, and upon all who love justice, and DESIRE the PERPETUATION of RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, to come to her aid, to stand with her until the danger shall have passed. And this, openly, submitting the justice of our cause to the enlightened judgment of our fellow men, should such an issue unhappily arise. We desire to live in peace and confidence with our fellow citizens of all political parties and of all religions.”

Adopted by vote of the Church, in General Conference, April 5, 1907
Rick Jepson Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:39 PM
Mike, I never stop being amazed by people who are so amazingly intolerant but somehow manage to feel themselves the martyr.

Your statements not just about homosexuality, but especially about women and “feminization”, etc., are beyond offensive. Stunning. Yet somehow you play the victim.

I can appreciate that–to you–marriage has a very specific, very religious definition. But surely you don’t think that most heterosexual marriages are made of the same stuff. Right? Why then attempt to apply your own definition to this special case?

More importantly, I don’t think the crux of this thread is about homosexuality at all, but instead about what one should do when faced with the horrible situation of being compelled by the church to do something he or she feels strongly against. As an exercise, it might be interesting for you to imagine how you would feel if, this next Sunday, your bishop asked you to spend your personal time and money campaigning FOR gay marriage. How would you react? Would you feel conflicted? Tormented? Would you feel you needed to share or clarify your objections?

Also, you’ve yet to answer my other question: would you support the legalization of polygamy?
Rick Jepson Says:
July 14th, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Eugene, if Sunstoneblog were truly an open forum where non-permabloggers were allowed to spontaneously start threads (hint hint to anyone reading), I’d sure enjoy a discussion of revelation by dream.

It’s something I’m entirely uncomfortable with, even though I know I can’t be and also believe that Lehi, Nephi, etc. all had revelatory dreams.

I’m sure it’s because of my prejudice against them that I’ve never been blessed with one. If I had the Tree of Life dream tonight, I’d surely disregard it in the morning.

Shame on me!
Eugene Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 5:20 AM
Rick #173, excellent response to all those posts from Mike. It brought to mind two statements I heard from COC’s new apostle Susan Skoor during a Sunstone workshop two or three years ago. 1) “We [COC] have learned to see Joseph through the eyes of Jesus, rather than seeing Jesus through the eyes of Joseph.” 2. Something to the effect of: “You must have the courage to disagree with me if your conscience strongly speaks to you on an issue.” Can you imagine any leader in the SLC ecclesiastical enterprise saying such a thing?
Eugene Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 5:34 AM
Rick #174, you courageously say, “…I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢d sure enjoy a discussion of revelation by dream…I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m sure it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s because of my prejudice against them that I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve never been blessed with one…”

Consider this: all of us human beings dream every night. The thing that blocks one’s memory of dreams is one’s ego. By its very nature the dream BYPASSES the ego, since it comes from one’s true self. If the ego is in charge of one’s life, it is a false self that rules. The same can be said for a “collective ego”.

I’d be pleased to discuss this assertion with anyone, any time.
Mike Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 5:42 AM
Rick, you are a false witness. I am not guilty of intolerance.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily people hurl out the ‘I’ word when all I am trying to do is discuss the issue and have an honest difference of opinion.

But in this day and age of political correctness, where no standards are sacred anymore, because each individual has his or her own standard, and the worst crime imaginable is that someone should be ‘judgmental’, (in whose judgment is ‘judgmentalism’ to be judged, I wonder?) anyone who dares disagree with the liberal orthodoxy as to what constitutes equality is pilloried with the label of intolerance.

I wish we could discuss the issue without the prejudicial labeling and stereotypes being misapplied.

In what universe is this issue ‘not about homosexuality at all’ ?

In what universe could my bishop possibly come to me and request that I ’support’ homosexuality?

It is obvious from reading what John Taylor had to say about polygamy, that he felt it was a religious institution, and not subject to Congressional oversight or legislation. I am confident that he would rail against a government that sought to dictate in what manner a religious ordinance was to be performed.

I don’t know what I would do in the hypothetical situation were polygamy to be commanded of the Lord – why deal in hypotheticals? I’ll deal with that if and when the time comes. We have the reality before us that the Lord’s Church has requested our help in a political matter – it’s not a hypothetical – it’s a reality – and to my mind it’s where one’s true colors are shown.

It’s pretty interesting that no one is answering my questions, yet they expect their questions of me to be answered.
Eugene Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Mike and Rick, the conversation between you two seems to have become a contest of egos, which egos love to do. Wrestler Rick may have an advantage here, depending on Mike’s stamina.

In any case, I feel overwhelmed by all of Mike’s posts, challenges and questions. I don’t feel a whole lot of beloving or humility in his comments. So, Mike, in behalf of those of us who feel swamped by you, can you distill all of your questions down to just a few–like no more than three? I, for one, have lost the focus on your major concern. Please ask your key questions again, since it is clear that you are passionate about this issue.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 11:39 AM
Thank, Eugene, for your thoughtful refereeing.

Mike, you posted so many questions in such rapid succession, that I took them to be hypothetical (particularly because they are phrased in a way that makes it seem as though you find them self-answering).

Please do distill them down if you expect answers.

And please feel free to answer my questions, even if it forces you into hypotheticals.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Mike says: “I wish we could discuss the issue without the prejudicial labeling and stereotypes being misapplied.”

Mike also says: feminization of our young men, masculinizing our young women, unmasculine men, wussified men, hormones are calling the shots, thought police, liberal leftists, thought police, Orwellian.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 4:33 PM
For those tired of the Gay Marriage debate, I apologize in advance. We won’t hold it against you if you sit this one out. I’ll try to post on a different subject next time, but the issue is still very topical, and I had some more thoughts on the subject I wanted to enumerate. Thanks. (Or “Sorry,” depending on your point of view.)
Christopher Bigelow Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Very thoughtful and interesting post. I agree that this has what happened in the past. Here’s why I’m one of the last-days doomsdayers who don’t think this is what will happen in the future:

My prediction is that homosexuality will be to Mormonism in the 21st century what polygamy was to us in the 19th, only in reverse. In the 19th century, we espoused a principle that the civilization at large could not abide, and civilization eventually pressured us into abandoning it. In the 21st century, civilization is espousing a principle that Mormonism cannot abide, and civilization will try to pressure us to accept it with every bit as much force as they used to get us to abandon polygamy, and perhaps worse. But instead of driving us to comply like we did to get statehood, it will instead make us dig our heels in deeper and ultimately perhaps cause us to part ways.

I think by as soon as mid-century you will find the church isolated and embattled because we refuse to accept gay marriage and accompanying legislation, which will have progressed to the national constitutional level by then, I think, and involve sanctions against those who don’t comply, such as closing our temples for refusing to perform gay marriages. I predict you will find faithful Mormons leaving the big metropolitan areas, especially on the coasts, and gathering together in places for safety and protection from the storm. You may even find the church itself officially disenfranchised or outlawed at some point, but if so then it will continue on an underground basis.

Why do I think this? Because the secular, irreligious world needs a seemingly moral cause to replace the religion they have rejected and to assuage their consciences, and Satan is setting up gay marriage as that perfect cause. He is brilliantly making it seem like accepting and embracing homosexuality is the next logical step in a progressive civilization, and anyone who stands in the way will be mowed down with even more vehemence than racists and other bigots are castigated in today’s politically correct atmosphere. There’s some validity in political correctness, of course, but Satan’s twisting it and taking it too far, using it to deceive people into defending and celebrating a sin. God will not support the civilization in this like I believe he probably did during the black civil rights movement, and so it will all turn nasty and evil.

I do not predict that the church will ever back down on the gay issue. Some Mormons are saying that the church backed down on blacks and it’s just a matter of time before they back down on gays and we’ll all feel so stupid and ashamed for resisting. However, you never saw the church resist the black civil rights movement in any officially coordinated way, although some individual leaders expressed concern. By contrast, on the gay issue the church is clearly ramping up for the fight, and I’m sure we’ll go the distance even if we end up getting knocked out of the ring and have to hunker down under the bleachers somewhere.

If gay marriage survives in California this fall, I think 2008 will go down in history as a major turning point that put us on a faster track to the chaos and calamities of the last days. In related news, this year may also prove to mark a turning point that puts us into an economic downturn from which we never fully recover. And who knows what change will be wrought by this fall’s presidential election, which may plunge us into some new situation that will look like another major watershed in retrospect? Or if not, then 2008 will have been a dress rehearsal for when things really do bump up to the next level of the last days.
austin s Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I do hope you’re right, Matt…
MoHoHawaii Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I need to argue against against the doomsday scenario of #2 above.

But instead of driving us to comply like we did to get statehood, it will instead make us dig our heels in deeper

And exactly why will the Church behave differently than it has in the past? The one thing it seems you can depend on an authoritarian bureaucracy to do is act to preserve itself. Self-destruction just isn’t in the cards for something as professionally run as the LDS Church.

[There will be] sanctions against those who don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t comply, such as closing our temples for refusing to perform gay marriages.

I’m sorry, but this is just paranoia. We have a long history in this country of allowing churches great leeway in saying whose unions they will bless. The Catholics, for example, have strict requirements that include never having been divorced. There is a separation of church and state in the US, and this exists for the protection of religion!

Besides, the LDS Church is just one of the many conservative churches, consisting of perhaps 25% of the population, who will not want to perform gay marriages. There’s safety in numbers.

There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s some validity in political correctness, of course, but Satan?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s twisting it and taking it too far.

I don’t know quite how to respond to this one. Let’s bring this back home:

1) The gay marriage issue is a civil issue entirely. It’s about whose kids are eligible for health insurance, which tax forms can be filed and who gets survivor benefits in the case of death. It’s a bit on the dull side for a diabolical plot.

2) No one is asking churches to do anything differently. Period.

3) What may cause pressure is simply the tide of public opinion that will occur as people see that gay marriage doesn’t make the sky fall down, and this is what Matt is talking about with his “optimal tension” argument. It’s real, but it’s going to happen regardless of the results of this particular election.

If gay marriage survives in California this fall, I think 2008 will go down in history as a major turning point that put us on a faster track to the chaos and calamities of the last days.

I hope you’re not trying to suggest that natural disasters and economic troubles are due to whether my boyfriend and I get to file joint tax returns someday.

You know, I too am scared for the world my kids will inherit, although I would argue that the coming economic challenges have more to do with charging a $3 trillion war on our national Visa card than with letting gay couples have hospital visitation rights.

One of the problems I have with the First Presidency’s letter is that it is polarizing us and whipping our emotions into a frenzy over something that, frankly, isn’t our number one national problem. We’ve got big issues to face: infrastructure, education, health care, the budget deficit, ending a 7 year war, etc., etc. Gay marriage is the least of our worries.

As always, if I disagree, I do so with respect.
Nick Literski Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 6:28 PM
#169:
Do I have a right in America to believe that homosexuality is wrong?

Absolutely! Of course, others have a right in America to believe that homosexuality is entirely acceptable.

Do I have a right in America to believe that homosexuality is sub-optimal for survival of the species?

Absolutely! Of course, others have a right in America to believe that homosexuality is a natural form of biological diversity, which has been observed in over four hundred species.

Do I have a right in America to believe that sexual urges are subordinate to other pro-survival urges such as the family unit?

Absolutely! Of course, others have a right in America to believe that consenting adults have a right to express their mutual love and affection in a physical manner, with or without the approval of your particular faith.

Do I have a right in America to think and to express my opinion on an equal footing with other people, that homosexual marriages are detrimental to family life and society?

Absolutely! Of course, others have a right in America to think and express their opinion on an equal footing with yours, that marriage equality is beneficial to family life and society.

Do I have a right in America to frankly discuss my opinions that homosexuality is a dysfunctional behavior?

Absolutely! Heck, you even have a right in America to frankly discuss your opinions that the earth is flat, and that babies are delivered to expectant parents by very strong storks. Of course, others have a right in America to frankly discuss their opinions that homosexuality is no more “functional” or “dysfunctional” than heterosexuality.

Do I have a right in America to believe and express my opinion, wherever I may be, that homosexuality can be overcome, that it may be an immature stage of development that some people are stuck in?

Absolutely! Of course, others have a right in America to believe and express their opinions, wherever they may be, that the drive to impose one’s religious standards of behavior onto the citizens of a pluralistic society can be overcome, and that it may be an immature stage of development that some people are stuck in.

Or – am I forced to accept other?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s opinions who happen to disagree with me,

Never.

and do I have to be silenced, legally shut down,

So long as you don’t incite violent or criminal acts against others, why would you “have to be silenced” or “legally shut down?”

and possibly removed from my place of employment

In most states, an employer can choose not to continue your employment, if you engage in workplace expressions which violate company policy or expose the company to charges of sexual harassment, etc. For that matter, in most states, an employer can choose to terminate you for being an insufferable, intolerant jackass. Don’t feel bad, though. In the majority of states, it is still entirely legal to terminate an employee purely on the basis of his or her sexual orientation.

and / or have my religious belief curtailed

How, exactly, would your “religious belief” ever be curtailed? No person or government is capable of “curtailing” another’s belief.

because some others wish to have their behavior classified/categorized as irreproachable?

Oddly enough, it seems that you’re trying very hard to have your own behavior (i.e. intolerance, and socially inappropriate public religious denunciations of others) classified/categorized as irreproachable. Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Matt Thurston Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Thanks for commenting Chris.

Your comment certainly dovetails nicely with Levi Peterson’s second paragraph above.

And I think your ideas would make a wonderful “speculative sci-fi novel” for Zarahemla Books. I know I’d read it.

And while I share your concerns for the future of mankind, let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill here. Gay Marriage doesn’t even crack the Top 500 reasons to fear for Civilization.

What became of the “end of the world” rhetoric of Mormon GA’s during the ramp up to the 1890 Manifesto? What became of the fear-based paranoia and conspiracy theories propagated by Mormon GA’s during the ramp up to the 1978 revelation? Nothing.

When/if Gay Marriage is recognized by the World, and possibly later by the Church, the end result, just like in the past, will be shockingly anti-climactic. Life will go on, only it will be more beautiful than before.

But I will clip and save your Comment #2. Twenty-five years from now, if we’re both still kicking around this place, we’ll either have a good-hearted laugh, or we’ll be hunkering under the bleachers somewhere while the Gay-loving secular world hunts us down. I hope I’m right.
Bored in Vernal Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 6:43 AM
I’m pretty sure we can compare this fight to the abortion-rights campaign more accurately than to the blacks-and-the-priesthood situation. There was a lot of emotion about it all for a while, but the courts have settled on granting abortion rights in carefully selected situations, and the Church maintains its stance against it. Each side coexists, if not exactly peacefully, at least in a state of minimum tension. A small minority of members hold pro-abortion views while holding on to their Church membership.

No hunkering under the bleachers, no gay Temple marriages.

Just my gaze into the crystal ball…
Shelly M. Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Bored in Vernal, you are right on.
Terry Maz. Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:36 AM
I think I will side with the ‘not much to see here crowd.’

All the sound and fury of the ERA issues and priesthood for women in the 1970s and 1980s put the church on the wrong side of equal rights for women, but nothing changed.

The actions of the church are not widely criticized and generally accepted by members of the church because there is a large portion of the population that, at least with respect to marriage, expects different roles for women. The same goes for issues related to same sex marriage.

The nightmare scenario predicted by the church with respect to Equal Rights didn’t yield the results in other jurisdictions that did extend constitutional protection to women.

Life will go on in the church, much as it has done for the past age . . .
Rick Jepson Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:38 AM
I have to agree with BiV on this one.

It’s significant to not that there are more nuances both in being anti- and pro- abortion than there originally were (and a more nuanced position from the church). I’d expect the same from homosexual marriage. And to a huge extent, we’ve already seen that. Just a decade ago or so there was zero tolerance, zero understanding.
Eugene Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 9:19 AM
Nick, thank you for having the patience and care to respond to Mike’s long list of challenging questions. You rose to the task with rigor and creativity and in so doing you have done us all a service. You answered as I wanted to do, but was incapable of by myself.
Gerald Smith Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 9:41 AM
I think the Church has already drawn its line in the sand. That line was drawn with the Proclamation of the Family. The Church will be compassionate towards those with same sex attraction, as they are with those with other addictions or temptations.
However, homosexual lifestyle will not be accepted. It is different from plural marriage or priesthood and blacks.
With plural marriage, Jacob tells us that monogamy is the standard except when God chooses otherwise. With blacks and the priesthood, there was precedence for it, as Joseph had already ordained some blacks, and all Church leaders agreed that blacks would someday receive the priesthood. It was an issue of when, not if.
In this issue, we are seeing homosexuality, which has always been considered sinful, trying to achieve acceptance in society. The Church has clarified its positions in two ways: first establishing what constitutes an acceptable family to God in the Proclamation of the Family. This states that only a nuclear family, with father and mother, is acceptable. Anything else is sub-par, non-celestial.
Second, the stance we are to take in loving the sinner and hating the sin, was reemphasized so that members will know how to deal with those suffering from same sex attraction addictions.
And yes, I agree with the many studies done that strongly suggest that SSA is most common among those who have not had an optimal relationship with Dad/male figure.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:00 AM
BiV, as per usual, makes a good point. Certainly, her scenario is inevitable, the next logical step. I do not expect the Church to sanction Gay Marriage overnight. If it happens, it will be the result of incremental change, degree by degree, line upon line.

I just don’t think it will stop at “each side coexists, if not exactly peacefully, at least in a state of minimum tension.” It will go beyond that, for a number reason. Let me enumerate two:

1.) Same-sex attraction, or “being Gay,” will eventually come to be accepted by the majority of society as completely “normal,” in the same way we accept black skin to be as “normal” as white skin. Whether the normality of same-sex attraction is eventually proven by science or medicine, or simply becomes a socially accepted fact, it doesn’t matter. The end result is the same.

But abortion, even for the majority of Pro Choice advocates, will always be an unfortunate, necessary evil. It is not something to be embraced, it is something everyone — including Pro Choicers — hopes to avoid. People that have abortions don’t consider it part of their identity. It is likely something they’d rather forget, something to push to the back of their minds.

Being Gay, however, is at the very core of one’s identity. Like being Heterosexual, it is just a baseline given, that impacts almost every aspect of one’s life. Tough to hide that under the rug, like Abortion.

2.) My second reason is more personal, but I believe recognizing, accepting, and embracing Gays is inherently “right,” “moral,” and “true,” in the same way that heterosexual love is right, moral, and true. I believe it is what God and Christ wants. And since I believe God/Christ is also present in the Mormon Church, I have great confidence that their influence will ultimately win the day. The prayers of the “least of these” will be heard, and a revelation will come.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:04 AM
I agree with Eugene (#182). Thanks Nick.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:06 AM
I really am going to save a copy of this discussion to look back on in a few decades. I’ll be interested to see how the conversation looks then. (Even if it’s underneath the bleachers).
MoHoHawaii Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Re #10 (Gerald Smith)

I agree with the many studies done that strongly suggest that SSA is most common among those who have not had an optimal relationship with Dad/male figure.

This has been debunked. Basically, association is not causation.

Some (straight) fathers do not respond well to their (gay) son’s temperament. Macho dads sometimes don’t like their (as they perceive) inadequately masculine sons. No big surprise really.

Homosexuality is not in any way the result of parenting styles.
MoHoHawaii Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I can agree with the idea that the trajectory of homosexuality as an issue might be much like that of equality for women (as opposed to the way it worked for blacks and the priesthood). Society will move on and the Church will follow, slowly, informally without a lot of fanfare. This is totally consistent with the model that Matt has suggested.
Mary in Northern Utah Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 3:18 PM
This is how I can remain in the church I grew up in and love but struggle with in regard to issues like gay marriage. I believe in this model of change, albeit “slowly, informally without a lot of fanfare.” (Thank you MoHoHawaii #14.) I’ve seen how the Church is kinder toward homosexuals than it was a generation ago. Thanks again, Matt, for your thought-provoking posts that give me continued hope.
Eugene Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Matt’s initial quote of Armand Mauss: “If survival is the first task of the movement?¢Ç¨¬¶” struck me like a bolt! That’s the distinction I have been looking for between Mormon and Christian movements from their respective inceptions. The FIRST task of those who follow Jesus is to love God–NOT “survival”. One doesn’t have to go far to illustrate this: Christians fed to the lions during Nero’s reign, Russian Orthodox Christians giving their lives in Soviet death camps. Non-denominational Christian martyrs all over the world these days in China, Africa, the middle East and elsewhere. True Christians do not first think of “survival”. That is the first task of a collective ego.
Christopher Bigelow Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 7:58 PM
This discussion makes me think of Social Darwinism, a little. Matt Thurston’s position seems to be that civilization will inevitably evolve in the direction of progress. Others of us not only fear but fully expect, given our religious beliefs, that civilization will eventually devolve to the point that the Second Coming will be necessary. I see legitimizing gay marriage as a big step down for civilization, because it mocks sacred heterosexual procreation to give equal status to a sin that counterfeits it.

I don’t buy the comparison with abortion at all. The equivalent argument there is the sodomy laws, which were long ago either disregarded or stricken from the books. Personally, I have libertarian leanings. I think adults should be free to do what they want to their own bodies, without interference from government. I tend to favor having no laws against the personal use of drugs, prostitution, abortion, sodomy, etc. as long as partakers in such vices don’t violate the rights of anyone else. Let them do what they want and face the consequences; after all, they usually do anyway.

But for our civilization to officially, openly embrace gay marriage, celebrate these sinful unions, give them the stamp of normalcy to confuse the hell out of our children, etc. is to me the sign of a civilization that is starting to get really sick. With such thumbing of the nose at God and his consequent withdrawal from blessing us, Satan will be freer to really make the most of this controversy and use it to push us to the level I described in comment #2 above.

Or if gay marriage doesn’t turn out to be the new form of evil that gets us all the way to the comment #2 scenario, it is clearly the next step to whatever bigger forms of evil lie ahead that will get us there. But why not gay marriage? It’s different from anything that has gone before in our civilization. It’s not just the toleration of personal liberties to commit a sin but the ENTHRONING of that sin in full legitimacy and celebration.

Whole different ball game.
Bored in Vernal Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 8:46 PM
Matt #11, your comment actually shows a lot of faith, and hope. You have a lot more than I do, but perhaps in this case I can borrow some of your light. For my sincere wish is that it will happen the way you describe. And sooner rather than later.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:47 AM
Chris #17, if the writers of The Secret are to be believed, “the most powerful law in the universe” is the law of attraction, the idea “that feelings and thoughts can attract events, from the workings of the cosmos to interactions among individuals.”

Such an idea, if true, has truly scary ramifications for a self-fulfilling armaggedon given the vast number of people on earth who fully expect the world to do itself in as precursor to the Second Coming.

I well remember a time when I shared your literalist thoughts about the “end of the world”. Events that I took as “signs of the times” were scary; but ironically they also gave me a sense of comfort, as they reinforced my beliefs; and hey, the Second Coming was a good thing, not something to be put off or avoided; and what did I have to worry about, I was on the Lord’s side?

Now I personally think The Secret nothing more than an obvious, common-sense premise blown to totally bullsh*t proportions for obvious commercial reasons. I would no more read the book or watch a Secret video than I would gouge my eyes out with a rusty dinner fork.

Nevertheless, the Second Coming prophesies scare the bejesus out of me, not because I believe the Book of Revelations, but because I believe you and billions of others believe the Book of Revelations.

Having said that, the Second Coming is a wonderful idea — i.e. that God or Christ will come again — but why, oh why, couldn’t it be modified so Christ would come again only after we’ve all learned to live and love each other, after we’ve stopped the wars and rumors of wars??? Doesn’t that make more sense? It would give us human beings something to strive for, it would put positive energy into the world.

Instead, we all hunker down under the bleachers and self-righteously judge the rest of Babylon, secure in our belief that we are right and they are wrong.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 9:51 AM
But Chris, I appreciate you commenting here. You are as aware as anyone of the demographics and leanings of most Sunstoners, and it takes guts to share one’s opposing opinion, especially using one’s full, real name.
Christopher Bigelow Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Thanks, Matt. I like to be different. I like to be a Sunstoner among true believers and a true believer among Sunstoners. I get a kick out of both. (And I’m fully sincere in my views/beliefs in both modes, too?¢Ç¨ÄùI’m not just playing a game.)

I’m attracted on some level to your hopes that humankind could actually bring on the Second Coming by being READY for Jesus, rather than being about to go extinct without his intervention. I just personally can’t imagine such a thing with human nature combined with Satan’s current free reign in the world. I think the idea that humans could accomplish a secular Zion on their own as a civilization smacks to me of relying on the arm of flesh, which is always doomed to eventually fail, just as all fallen human civilizations are doomed to eventually fail.

But hey, maybe we’ve got another 500 or 1,000 years left in us as a non-religiously-unified human civilization. Part of me hopes so. But the larger part sees the weight of revelation and the signs of the times as showing that we’re likely much closer to the end game than that. It’s just the nature of the beast.
Krys Corbett Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 11:01 AM
I agree with the comments in #6 about abortion being a good analogy. The women’s rights movement as well — sure there are some changes but the priesthood is still a male only institution because that is seen as the only theologically and doctrinally sound way to go.

Similarly, gay marriage strikes the same theological and doctrinal bases for many. (Of course I don’t think that should set the civic rules any more than a choice to observe the sabbath should mean towns can’t choose to have businesses open on Sunday.)

The funny thing about driving this from the church doctrines and theology of gender and family — divorce (and remarriage) seem like greater doctrinal threats than gay marriage. The whole idea of sealing and children being sealed to parents breaks down a little when the parents are no longer sealed to each other. Interesting the Ensign articles about staying together with one’s nonbelieving or nonparticipating spouse — because straight doctrine would actually lead elsewhere.
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
My crystal ball may be no better than anyone else?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s, but (for what it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s worth) I think Matt?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s scenario is ultimately more likely than those suggested by Chris (who predicts the Church will never change and doomsday will result) or BiV and Terry Maz (who predict the Church will never change and things will go along as usual).

I see the issues surrounding gay marriage as very similar to those involving polygamy or priesthood to blacks. Gerald Smith tosses off the polygamy issue by quoting Jacob, but if you read the ferocious 19th Century rhetoric by apostles and prophets in support of polygamy, you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ll understand that these folks firmly believed it was the only true ?¢Ç¨?ìcelestial?¢Ç¨¬ù marriage. The fact that several apostles actually left the church over the issue, and others continued to enter into and sanction plural marriages for years after the Manifesto, should tell you how strongly they felt on the issue.

Likewise, there were extraordinarily strong statements from prophets and apostles against giving the priesthood to blacks. Alvin R. Dyer, counselor to President McKay (among others), preached that blacks were among the less-valiant third of the pre-existence host, and while there were some statements speculating that their time would come, most of them were fairly late, after the civil rights demonstrations of the sixties.

Clearly the majority of the Church in the 1870s would never have believed we would forsake polygamy and the majority of the Church in the 1920s would never have believed the blacks would be given the priesthood.

The gay marriage issue is wrapped up in issues of sexuality, morals and procreation. (Personally, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think it has anything at all to do with procreation, but the opponents of gay marriage keep harping on it.) Let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s look at how those types of issues have evolved. In the 19th Century, and after, we had garments that came to the ankles and wrists. What happened to garments when it became generally accepted that it was OK to show legs and arms? How many women today actually wear garments that even cover their knees? As late as when I was on my mission we were still quoting Joseph Fielding Smith to the effect that any artificial form of birth control was evil. Do you think our GA?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s today use artificial forms of birth control? How many of them have families of 10 to 14 children, as was common in earlier centuries? Some of the old-timers when I was young thought that sex should only be engaged in when there was a possibility of procreation.

There is precedent for the Church to progress on the sex and procreation front.

Terry Maz makes a compelling argument that the gay marriage issue should be compared to what happened regarding the ERA. Women got equal rights without the amendment and the fuss has died down. She (he?) may be right. But I see major differences. We never told women they couldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have sex with men. We told them (and men) that they shouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t have sex outside marriage, but they have always had the marriage option. We are seeking to deny that option to gays and lesbians who want to remain members in full fellowship in the Church.

Of course, the gay marriage issue in California isn’t as controversial as whether the Church will ever embrace gay marriage. In California the Church leaders want to deny gays and lesbians the right of marriage altogether ?¢Ç¨Äú even those who have nothing to do with the Church.

My crystal ball says the Church will come around on this issue eventually because it is the right thing to do. Bigotry is wrong ?¢Ç¨Äú it was wrong in the past and always will be wrong. It may be a long time coming, but I have a great hope that a generation of Mormon leaders yet to be installed will come to understand that.
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 11:56 AM
A quick commenet on Krys, #22, who says: “I agree … about abortion being a good analogy. The women?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s rights movement as well ?¢Ç¨Äù sure there are some changes but the priesthood is still a male only institution because that is seen as the only theologically and doctrinally sound way to go.”

Matt adequately responded to the abortion analogy, which is entirely off point.

As to women’s rights — the other thing I would say is that someday Mormon women will wake up and realize that there is no reason they cannot be called to leadership positions in the Church and to lead men, where their respective talents dictate it.

Sure, there appears to be doctrine against it now, but there was doctrine against doing away with polygamy and giving the priesthood to blacks. The wonderful thing about having a prophet today is that he can trump so-called doctrine.
Glenn Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 1:13 PM
The Church still practices plural marriage, just not while all participants are living. If my wife were to die, I could be sealed to another woman, therefore have 2 women sealed to me for eternity.

The Church never claimed that being black was a sin, so that was not used to deny full priesthood blessings. Through scripture and modern-day revelation, we learn that homosexuality is a sin and those who openly practice it are barred from the privileges of the priesthood. So are you saying the Church will eventually say that homosexuality will be not only be moral, but embraced? That’s quite the supposition. After all, the first commandment to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply, something gay couples are not equipped to do.

And would you change Oh My Father to say “I not only have one Father there, I have two or more”?
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:00 PM
Glenn, are you joking? Church leaders directly linked being black to sin and used it as the central justification for the racist ban: both an historic sin of cain and a premortal sin or all black people.

one of dozens of examples, this one from M. E. Peterson:

“He will mete to us according to what we deserve. With that in mind, can we account in any other way for the birth of some of the children of God in darkest Africa, or in flood-ridden China, or among the starving hordes of India, while some of the rest of us are born here in the United States?”
Glenn Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Rick, nope, not joking at all. All that Peterson quote shows is that some of us were born to a certain lot in life as a direct result of our actions (or inaction) in the premortal realm. No where does that say “blacks don’t receive the priesthood due to the sin of being black.” Though I’m sure in this politically correct climate, they would mean “African American.”
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:24 PM
They said exactly that. They said that black skin came directly from an individual sin. They said that all blacks were worse in the pre-existence than whites.

You’ve even reiterated that our “lot in life” (i.e. being black) is a direct consequence of our premortal actions.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:27 PM
“Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin…The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence” (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).

According to BRM, being black = being a sinner. NO QUESTION.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:27 PM
“there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:29 PM
These horrible attitudes were also, as you say, “informed by scripture and modern revelation.”
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:32 PM
“Why is it in the Church we do not grant the priesthood to the negroes? It is alleged that the Prophet Joseph said – and I have no reason to dispute it – that it is because of some act committed by them before they came into this life. It is alleged that they were neutral, standing neither for Christ nor the devil. But, I am convinced it is because of some things they did before they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege. The races of today are very largely reaping the consequence of a previous life.” (Apostle Melvin Joseph Ballard, Three Degrees of Glory, p. 22)
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Obviously, this list of quotes could go on for ever. Instead, tell me what you mean by:

“The Church never claimed that being black was a sin, so that was not used to deny full priesthood blessings.”

What was used as justification, if not sin?
Matt Thurston Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Some of you know Kaimi Wenger. He said something interesting recently about Biblical errancy. I don’t think he’d mind me quoting him here:

I think it’s important to note that we _don’t_ follow the rules as set out in either the Old or the New Testament. We cherry-pick like mad. And we’ve done it for a long, long time.

The OT prescribes death as the punishment for homosexuality, witchcraft, cursing a parent, or living in the same city as a heretic. It says that rape is a perfectly acceptable way to find a wife.

The NT has ideas we don’t follow, either. Paul’s epistles say that women shouldn’t speak in church, and that it’s better to be celibate for life than to marry, and that slaves should willingly obey their masters and not complain.

We cherry pick all the time. Our current focus on a few select scriptures is another example of cherry picking.

Why ignore Leviticus or Paul on homosexuality? The same reason we ignore them on rape, death penalty, slavery, and marriage.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 4:49 PM
TTBF (#23, #24), spot on, as usual. I’m with you on women’s rights, but wonder if there will ever be the groundswell of attention and/or desire to make it happen? Part of the reason there was a major shift in doctrine/practice related to polygamy and blacks, (and probably one day for gays as well), is that the status quo was/is largely untenable. There simply was/is no middle gound to occupy.

Of course, I realize the status quo for women in the church today is untenable for many, but what percentage? Is it even 10% of women?

Whereas the status quo for gays and blacks was/is untenable for all… close to 100% of gays and blacks simply could not/cannot live with the current situation.
Trying to be Fair Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:54 PM
Perhaps it doesn’t need to be untenable. What if it were just nonsensical? And it doesn’t necessarily have to be only women who feel that way. In fact, it would be better if it were equal parts men and women. One can dream, can’t one?
Rick Jepson Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:59 PM
We’ll get there. Maybe not on time for my beautiful daughter to get her share….but hopefully her daughter will.

BTW, for my money, TryingtobeFair is the most level-headed, sensible, objective poster in the forum.

Thanks for setting that example to more contentious folks like me.
MoHoHawaii Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Re #34 (Matt Thurston, quoting Kaimi Wenger)

We cherry pick all the time. Our current focus on a few select scriptures is another example of cherry picking.

I was at a gay pride parade a couple of years ago and across the street from me I could see some protesters with the usual handheld posters that pronounced God’s wrath upon gay sinners. Right next to these protesters were a few people with counter-protest signs. These read “God hates shrimp!”

I cracked up. (If you don’t get the joke, check out Leviticus 11:9-12.)

By the way, there’s also the web site http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/ which blames the Katrina disaster on the fact that Louisiana is famous for gumbo.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Met with my Bishop. Added a brief postscript to the blog post above.
Eugene Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Matt, your postscript meeting with your Bishop seems like a milestone event! May its example resonate with all other LDS leaders.
DavidH Says:
July 18th, 2008 at 5:13 PM
I do not think there will be significant pressure from the “world” on the Church to change its position on homosexuality as long as the larger Christian communities (e.g., Catholicism, Anglicanism outside of US and Britain, Southern Baptists, etc…), and the Muslim communities, continue to teach that it is wrong.

I suppose it is possible that the Catholic hierarchy and evangelical preachers will change their views, but I do not think that will happen in my lifetime.

I will say that a change in the Church’s position (if it happens) would not be as difficult as a change in biblical interpretation by evangelical preachers or a change by the Catholic hierarchy.

I do not believe there is anything in the canonized works from Joseph Smith’s time (including the Book of Mormon) that speaks to homosexuality, nor did Jesus say anything about the subject during His earthly ministry. The only canonized works touching on the subject are some of the Pentateuch and some of Paul’s teachings. Even the Proclamation on the Family, not yet canonized, does not explicitly address homosexuality or behavior.

We do, of course, have the words of some of the very modern prophets, especially President Kimball, but these are not canon. If the Church ever changed its position, it could jettison those teachings in the same way it has jettisoned some earlier teachings about race-lineage.

I do not pretend to know God’s will on the matter. I do believe the Brethren are striving as best they can to discern His will and implementing it.
LRC Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Mike – You’ve reminded us that homosexuals are free to marry anyone of the opposite sex. Would you want a gay man to marry your daughter/sister/niece? Would you be happy to see your son/brother/nephew promise his life to a lesbian? How would you feel about these couples raising your grandchildren, etc.?

And what would you advise the straight relative to do in the event that the homosexual spouse decided living in heterosexual matrimony was no longer worth the sacrifice and left to pursue “greener pastures”? And what would you tell the couple’s children should Mommy/Daddy leave for another woman/man?
Jacob F Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:43 PM
As a mainstream Mormon, this line of thinking scares the hell out of me. Reassuringly, in 1890 only the Mormons had ever (in then-recent history) favored polygamy. In 1977, we were pretty much the only ones too given the uniqueness of our priesthood doctrines. However, in 20XX we’re not the only ones in the wilderness on the gay marriage issue. Millions of (politically-active) evangelicals, Catholics, etc., have our backs.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Jacob, you make some interesting points.

However, I think the millions of politically-active Evangelicals, Catholics, etc. will start to dwindle. It already has. Every year, something like 2-3% of the population shifts from being against Gay Marriage to for Gay Marriage (or at least tolerant of Gay Marriage).

In 2000, Prop 22 passed 61% to 39%. Today, Prop 8 will probably be closer to 50/50. If the 2-3% trend continues, what how will the LDS church look in 2020, or 2030? Will there be as many Evangelicals and Catholics who have our back?

And do they even have our back? Does it bother you that many of these groups are the same people who actively campaigned against Romney on religious grounds, and produce all kinds of “Mormonism is a Cult” texts? Given their track record of bigotry and intollerance for other faiths, shouldn’t we question their stance on Gays?

Finally, as a “mainstream Mormon,” I’m interested in knowing what you think Mormon Gays should do? Marry someone of the opposite sex and try to work it out? Remain celibate their entire lives and await their sexual re-orientation in the next life? Leave the Church? How do they fit into the Plan of Salvation? Everybody is quick to point out what they should NOT do; but nobody seems to want to talk about or admit what they should do.

And what do you think about revelation or enlightenment coming from the world? Do you agree at all with Levi Peterson? Do you see the “world’s hand” at all in our revelations to end Polygamy and embrace Blacks?
Jeanne Says:
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 AM
I know god’s will in this matter: she is strongly in favor of gay marriage. The fact that Utah has the highest gas prices in the contintental US is one indication of her displeasure at Utah’s homophobia.
Rick Jepson Says:
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Thanks for demonstrating that people on both sides of the argument can make flimsy connections!
Matt Thurston Says:
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Rick, “flimsy” may be too generous a word to explain the connection, an affront to the word “flimsy.”

I’d re-write your sentance as follows:

“Thanks for demonstrating that people on both sides of the argument can make totally bogus connections!”
Terry Maz Says:
July 25th, 2008 at 10:12 AM
Dude, am I the only one that thinks of Bill and Ted whenever I hear the word Bogus?

Totally . . .
Seagullite Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 10:24 AM
“Finally, as a ?¢Ç¨?ìmainstream Mormon,?¢Ç¨¬ù I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m interested in knowing what you think Mormon Gays should do? Marry someone of the opposite sex and try to work it out? Remain celibate their entire lives and await their sexual re-orientation in the next life? Leave the Church? How do they fit into the Plan of Salvation?”

My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes.

God knows our hearts, our desires. He knows that when we strive through grief and pain. Many of us struggle with temptations and other issues, however, as long as we center our faith in Jesus Christ, we can rest assured that if we endure it well, God will bless us.
Edwin Firmage Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 12:20 PM
Mormonism Straight and Narrow

“When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.” This is the new jingle going around LDS ward houses in California. In an unprecedented move, the LDS Church has actually placed donation boxes and sign-up sheets for anti-gay groups in its places of worship, and encouraged members to give of their time and means to these groups in order to stop the gay tide before it overwhelms America.

Not to be outdone by the Lord’s anointed in California, LDS Senator Harry Reid has just launched a new burn ‘em at the stake contest in Washington in which the featured friers are that other great threat to life as we know it, the vast criminal conspiracy known as polygamy.

Between its activities in California and those of its Washington bureau, the LDS Church has now made it abundantly clear what it is NOT. It is not for diversity. Not since the days of Cotton Mather and his friends in Salem, who seem to have felt similarly threatened by poor and unsupervised young women, has religious fervor directed against sinister minorities burned at such a pitch. Mormons have declared themselves for the straight and narrow way, the very straight and the very narrow. One man, one woman, twelve kids, and a Suburban.

It’s also not for history. For the new Mormons, marriage is one man on one woman, and they’re undeterred by the fact this declaration makes bastards of their great-great grandparents and adulterers of the THEIR parents. Perhaps at no time in history has a group of people been so willing, indeed so desperate, to distance themselves from their past. While nursing kids were being ripped from their mothers’ arms in Texas, the LDS Church here in Salt Lake felt compelled not to advocate restraint and due process and Christian charity but to insure that the world knew that LDS?¢Ä?¬FLDS.

With its violent repudiation of all but a single expression of sexuality, the church’s metamorphosis into an icon of American intolerance is complete. God help Joseph Smith and Brigham Young when they return in glory to reestablish Zion, for no one here will. They’ll be given instead the welcome the Grand Inquisitor gave to Jesus.
Edwin Firmage Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 12:38 PM
P.S. That’s Ed Firmage, Jr. Don’t want Sr. to get blamed for my spouting off.

The real tragedy in all of this, sad as the direct impact on LDS gays will be, is that there are so many other TRULY crucial issues on which the church should act with this kind of intensity. There has been some discussion of this with Paul Mero on the One Utah blog for anyone who is interested.
Eugene Says:
July 26th, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Ed Jr, you sound like a chip off the old block. Your dad should be proud of you!
Suzanne Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 3:26 AM
VARIATIONS ON A THEME: My work has brought me into interaction with almost a thousand children a week for the past three decades. The many kinds of “families” and “homes” these children spring from defies description.

What also defies description is the one variable that is the most important: All of our children feel a unique and necessary connection to the people with whom they live. Whether it be with a “traditional” mom and dad under one roof, or with grandparents, step parents, transient parents, single parents, gay parents, foster parents, extended families, institutional staff, homeless parents, abusive parents, inadequate parents, loving parents, criminal parents, or whatever — that connection is the most fundamental element of the child’s existence.

The “Family” Proclamation is at once inspirational and anguishing. The ideal or goal that it sets is inarguably a model that was set out in the Creation Story, but even then there must have been those little nuances that required the barely mentioned “adaptation.”

What is it then that makes the model the Cadillac plan? A man, a woman and an egg, of course. And a plan for division of responsibilities that provides for the care and nurture of the resulting child. Okay. That’s good. But nature is not all that dependable…. apparently as part of the Grand Design. Storms and drought and earthquakes ruin the nest; fathers have to go to other lands during famines and war and sometimes they die or abdicate. Mothers sometimes give up mothering for selfish reasons or for illness. But the child is still entitled to nurturing.

When I read the Family Proclamation I have to swallow at the part that says ?¢Ç¨?ì Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. ?¢Ç¨?ì What does entitled mean? Lucky? Assured? Guaranteed? Were we all told when we accepted the Plan of Salvation in the pre-existence that we would be coming to a two parent, two car, four child family with good times, good food, and enough gas to get to all our meetings and a good job and the mall too? I know it looked good according to Saturday?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s Warriors and other descriptions, but didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t we also opt to be born in Africa and being sold into slavery, or to tribes wandering barefoot around the desert, or into disease-ridden slums and war torn villages? Were we not warned it might be tough down here?

The Plan was rifled with variable circumstances but the instructions were the same :
Love – really love – one another.

We get warm fuzzies at the tales of the boy raised by the mother fox, or the mother dog suckling the orphaned kittens. We smile when the Family Section of the newspaper shows the lovely Christian couple who provide for a dozen disabled and adopted children. But we rail at the thought of women choosing single parenthood or gay men adopting children. Even though gays and singles usually opt for the children that heterosexuals have abandoned and white middle-class married couples don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want, i.e., mentally and physically challenged, a little aged and variously hued.

The other night I was on the message boards at the LDS Mingle site. (My kids gave me a membership for Christmas thinking it might a good thing.) Several single sisters were discussing adopting children from places like Sri Lanka and China, wanting to indulge their maternal instincts and rescue orphans. (Those of us who are ?¢Ç¨?ìfamily?¢Ç¨¬ù challenged can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t adopt through agencies like LDS Social Services.) I shared the blessings and challenges from my experience of having adopted four young girls from the bowels of Southern California. Immediately, the Family Proclamation was brought up and several posters insisted that it was against ?¢Ç¨?ìthe church?¢Ç¨¬ù for singles to adopt. That only temple worthy two parent financially secure families should adopt and so that the adoptees could be sealed into the ?¢Ç¨?ì acceptable?¢Ç¨¬ù family situation. We pointed out that if every good LDS family adopted a couple dozen international orphans there would still be plenty for we singles to pick up. And that the possibility of the leftovers in Rumanian orphanages being sealed into a Utah family was rather miniscule. Then this comment was posted: You should ask yourself if you have the faith to follow The Prophet and the Proclamation and leave that child where he is so that he has a chance to be sealed into an eternal family? Would you really be selfish enough to deny that child the possibility to be sealed for all eternity to a mother and father? You should go talk to your bishop because he will tell you that’s what the church says.

Compassionate action. Everyone can practice it. Persons who are single, disabled, and gay can love and nurture children. And when they do they are living an essential part of the Plan of Salvation and the gospel. And we have an obligatory responsibility to support everyone who is willing and capable of giving children the nuturing they are entitled to.

That much I know. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know how to deal with all the other stuff.
RickJepson Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Suzanne, I’m horrified. And so, so, so sorry that someone said something that awful to you. I’m flabergasted.

Please know that you and people like you are loved and appreciated. I’ll carry a prayer for you in my heart all day today.

Also, you really changed my whole concept of this issue…really broadened my vision of it. Thanks for that.
Jeanne Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 3:48 PM
OK, this is the point at which God, Saint Catherine, Saint Michael, Saint Margaret and I all become shocked at your lousy senses of humor.

To those of you who claim, in any seriousness, to know the minds of those two notoriously inscrutable characters, God and his old buddy Satan: I predict that someday you will know how I felt, when the flames rose to my roman nose and my hearing aid started to melt.

In other words, my point was this: people who presume to know god’s will or satan’s plan on any topic very often discover, in quite painful ways, that they didn’t know jack, and invoking god’s will or satan’s plan as cause of any complex natural or social phenomenon–a military victory, a political upheaval, famine, a hurricane, AIDS, and even the demise of the “traditional family”–is not only a flimsy but a totally bogus enterprise.

Guess I should have spelled my point out instead of illustrating it.

Like, duh. To the max.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 27th, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Sorry Jeanne, my big mouth strikes again. Maybe that was a “duh,” was it really a “duh, to the max”? On the internet, there’s always someone, somewhere, with a big nose who knows… and I thought you were one of them. One person’s sarcasm, is another person’s truth… and divining the diff can be damn near impossible: Is Jeanne a witty, sharp-tongued social liberal, or a ultra-right-wing, conspiracy-theorist crackpot? Given the tenor of some of these blog comments, Rick and I assumed the latter and took your comment at face value.
Jon Butler Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 8:54 AM
If any church members today feel or think that the church is God’s specially anointed society to keep itself unspotted from Babylon they are quite ignorant of the details of their church’s history, especially mid to late 19th century, 20th century and now the 21st century.
Eugene Says:
July 28th, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Jon #52, “If any church members today feel or think that the church is God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s specially anointed society…they are quite ignorant of the details of their church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s history…” And you know what Joseph Smith said about ignorance, yes? [Hint: D&C 131:16]
Pete Pratt Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Eternal hetrosexual marriage is, with the Fatherhood of God, the atonement and the creation and fall, part of the very core of LDS doctrine. Regardless of the political pressure that may be brought to bear I do not think the Lord will every sanction same sex marriage. Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, were commanded to multiply and replenish the earth — a commandment that is repeated at every temple marriage.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 6:34 PM
dear Mr Matt Thurstan,
As the rabbi of Idaho for many years, I was pleasured to meet and talk with many of Mormonisms old guard and with a few of the new theologists. I also understand the inevitability of Gay Marriage in our time and space in history. Whether we agree with it or not is not an issue. We all agree that God Herself is the determiner of history. If it becomes a reality as I think it will, we religionists who represent the various belief paths, must come forth to accept it just as we accepted interracial marriages. Same Sex Marriage is not prohibited by Jewish Scripture no matter what anyone tells you. We Jews will not accept blame for denying marriage equality to gays and lesbians because religious fundamentalists want to give that blame to us.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I am a Jewish rabbi (not a Christian).
I perform same sex MARRIAGES.
No where in a Jewish marriage do we marry “until death do we part.”
Larry Mann Says:
July 30th, 2008 at 7:09 PM
I notice that in comment #10, Gerald Smith asserts:

“The Church will be compassionate towards those with same sex attraction, as they are with those with other addictions or temptations.”

It is interesting to see there are still people around who suffer from the impression that homosexuality is pathological – a sexual addiction and a temptation.

There are certainly people in the world who have sexual addictions, but I am quite certain that more than 95% of these sex addicts are heterosexuals. That is, sexual addiction is neither heterosexual nor
homosexual. But Gerald wants to see it as homosexual. Odd.

Gerald also supports the idea of loving the sinner but hating the sin. Does this really make sense? How would any of us here feel if our nonLDS friends said to us: “Love the Mormon but hate the Mormonism” ? Or worse, “I love you, but I hate everything you think, and feel, and say, and do, and believe.” Hmmmmm . . .

As to the sage advice of Levi Peterson, he’s right on: what will make the Church “peculiar” finally is not being anti marriage equality, but supporting and defending and promoting healthy, productive relationships for everyone, irrespective of sexual orientation.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 7:19 AM
Welcome Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill!

With your refreshing remarks, it’s about time someone with your experience and the wisdom of your tradition has graced our upstart Mormon discourse.
Matt Thurston Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 9:22 AM
Thanks for your comments, Rabbi (#55 – 56). And please feel free to weigh in with the Jewish perspective any time.

So, are all Jews in favor of same-sex marriage? I know you can’t speak for all Jewish individuals, but is the stance or doctrine/policy of the “corporate church”, for lack of a better word, pro gay-marriage?

It would be great to form a “coalition” of Jews, Mormons, and Christians in favor of same-sex marriage.

Larry #57, well said.

Pete #54, so much of “the very core of LDS doctrine” has changed over the years that it is silly to assume that any one doctrine or policy can’t be changed. Remember, we are always subject to the constraints of “limited light and knowledge”; and “we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

So be careful what you say about Adam and Steve. Steve just might be your home teacher or your bishop one day…
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 4:01 PM
There is an old saying in Ladino, the Yiddish od the Jews of the Spanish-Portuguese Expulsion: Dos Judiyos, tres kehiloth (if there are two Jews, there are at least three opinions). All Jews are not in favor of Same Sex Marriage. Those who follow the more Orthodox perspective are exactly like those who follow a more traditional understanding within Christianity or Islam. However, those of us who follow a more inclusive and liberal understanding of the Torah; Conservative, Reform, Renewal and Reconstructionist Jews, accept that the understanding of the Torah that was accepted in the past is not the understanding of the Torah for today’s Jewish reality. The Torah is a LIVING document, not a once upon a time history. In order to be a living document it has to be reread and interpreted in every generation. In the second century C.E. the Sages of the Talmud stated unequivocally that there were passages in the Torah which purport to have been given as the Very Word of God (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21; Exodus 22: 1-2; Deuteronomy 22: 25-27)that they, 1500 years later, declare to have not been said by God at all (Sanhedrin 68B-73B). In other words, they understood that Laws that were given for one time period might no longer be applicable in another time period. Rabbi Jesus ben Joseph of Nazareth, if the passage concerning the woman caught in adultery is authentic(John 8: 1-11) shows that Jesus agreed with the Sages, including Rabbi Hillel, who uttered a similar
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
July 31st, 2008 at 4:08 PM
injunction against the death penalty, the required punishment for a woman caught in adultery. It is the job of a rabbi to seek to understand the Hebrew texts, the halakha (Law), and exegesis enough to be able to take part in the ongoing dialog with God so that he or she can convey to a modern Jewish world his or her understanding on what God’s message to us is now.
Joseph Blow Says:
August 3rd, 2008 at 11:45 AM
While this is a “thoughtful” post, this may well be the issue where the Lord may not budge, that may cause us to endure the kind of opposition we have never seen, almost to our dissolution.
Lynn Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Thanks to Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill for reminding us Christians about Jesus’ response to those who wanted to fulfill the law by stoning the woman taken in adultery. I agree with the Rabbi that Jesus was reinterpreting the established law for a new era. In my view, Jesus?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ new teachings seemed to focus on challenging the old established order by preaching compassion for those who were disenfranchised and disrespected by society–namely the poor, sick, publicans, and sinners. Jesus seems to direct any ?¢Ç¨Àúfire and brimstone’ speech, not at sinners, but at the current established order, namely the Pharisees and Sadducees. There does not seem to be much focus in Jesus’ teachings about the importance of sexual sins. The emphasis is on service, compassion, acceptance and love. Perhaps we as LDS should also re-examine biblical teachings for our current times, or alternatively, just focus a bit more on Jesus?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ reinterpretation.
David Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Your premise is misconstrued. The purpose of the church isn’t to recieve revelation and then distribute that revelation to the world through missionary work. It is also not a measure of revelation to point out how many Mormons were recipeints of divinely appointed revelation or inspiration in the development of technological, medical, humanitarian, political, or artistic creations.

The Church and its missionary program serves first and foremost to gather Zion. The Book of Mormon ushered in that work and it continues today, gathering the wheat from the tares.

Your article relates to one specific principle, that of enduring to the end, but it has little to do with the establishment of the church, the purposes of the church or any of its revelations guiding its way toward the second coming.

You are simply applying a very narrow tangent of discussion (enduring to the end) to the entire purpose, course and direction of the Church.

It happens all the time when an intelluctual emerses herself in say, the study of culture or anthropology or the rise and fall of civilizations and then believes they have merit when describing the course of the Mormon Church.

Nice thinking. Poor application.
Julie Stout Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Jeanne and Matt:

It warms my heart that you would both so cleverly quote Morrissey and The Smiths in this blog (btw, my brother in law claims to have heard Moz deny being gay on the KROQ Kevin and Beane show). This is a fantastic blog and I only wish I’d had some of these sophisticated arguments at my fingertips when trying to defend gay marriage to some people a few years ago who accused me of being in grave spiritual danger based on my sentiments.
Matt Thurston Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 5:26 PM
Julie, Morrissey is a poet and a prophet… I could probably find a Moz quote to fit almost any application. I’m guessing he doesn’t find sexual labels — straight, bi, gay — particularly interesting or important; hence his general refusal to discuss his sexuality, or to couch in coy terms. But I’m sure Morrissey could come up with something far more clever than I could to sum up this entire Gay Marriage debacle.

David (#64), Sociology, Anthropology, Linguistics, Genetic, History, Science, etc. scholars all have their own point of view with which to analyze the past and future of religious traditions. Taken together or separately, they have a lot to say about our past, and help point the direction of our future.

Of course, predicting the future, whether a Scholar or a Prophet, is an inexact “science.” The prophetic record is frankly pretty spotty on this account. The Scholarly record might not be that much better.

Many religious “believers” hate to see their faith reduced to scholarly data points. I have tried in this post to show that there is room for prophetic and scholarly discourse in these matters.

I have borrowed two sociological ideas from Peterson and Mauss to demonstrate why I think LDS Gay Marriage is inevitable at some future date.

Over the past 180+ years of LDS history, we have not yet deviated from within the spectrum of these socieological goal posts. Of course, the past is not an exact predictor of the future. The church could very well keep to its guns on this issue. But I will “prophesy” that doing so will have the effect of reducing the LDS church to a fringe group (at best, a “hiss and a byword” at worst)… just as would have happened had we not reversed course on Polygamy in 1890 or the Black Priesthood Ban in 1978. If that happens, then Chris’s comment #2 and Joseph Blow’s comment #62 are the only way we can go.

But I don’t think that will happen… 1.) I have too much faith in our leaders that they will eventually come around, just as many people, my parents included, had faith in the 60s and 70s that they’d come around on Blacks; and 2.) The church has demonstrated since Day 1 that it is nothing if not pragmatic. If you discount “institutional survival” as anything less than an everpresent baseline given, then you aren’t paying attention to history.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 7:30 PM
You will search the entire Hebrew Scriptures in vein for any admonition to do missionary work. The concept of denying that all religious paths can access God equally is not a Jewish premise and can be best seen in the statement of the Hebrew Prophet Amos, when he said: “To Me, O Israelites, you are just like the Ethiopians – declares YHVH. True, I brought Israel up from the land of Egypt, but (I also brought up) the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arameans from Kir.”
The God of Moses, YHVH, is the same God YHVH as is the God of Balaam, whose prayer-blessing on Israel we recite upon entering a synagogue.
The concept of God speaking to Prophets and Kings of other people, other than the Israelites, is all through the Hebrew texts.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 7:46 PM
That said, I agree with Matt Thurston that God will indeed give a new revelation to His/Her Prophets of the LDS Church to grant equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians PLUS other Priesthood opportunities as God has given your Church to understand. This is inevitable!I think that God will give that understanding to the Community of Christ Church first as they seem to be the most progressive and accepting of new revelation.
However, eventually the Utah Church will come around to accepting what is God’s Will. They always have and I am convinced that they will not disapoint those of us who faith in the LDS Church’s ability to slowly move with the flow towards a New Age of Acceptance and Peace.
Chad Shnider Says:
August 4th, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Today I discovered “Sunstone” thanks to LDS Temple Study Blog.
The mission statement of this organization was so inviting and promising. I had, I suppose foolishly, assumed that this would be a place to discuss LDS doctrines from a scholarly point of view. I guess I had wanted a place where I could come and talk about the thoughts on my mind regarding where I thought particular doctrines are placed in the puzzle of the Gospel.

I found the above post to be akin with anti-mormon arguments. To quote only scholarship irrespective of doctrine is dangerous in speaking about religion and religious movements. I gained from the above blog that doctrines, revelations, and all things that make religions religions are simply micro manifestations of larger social movements. I do NOT think your blog had anything to do with gay marriage. I think you used that issue to promote a well-crafted theory. Perhaps there is merit to your doctrinal theory of revelation and social movements being connected and I think that is worth more study. But applying your doctrinal theory to a long-shot hypothesis that the Church will accept gay marriage, for a lack of better wording, is simply wrong.

As a budding political science student I became frustrated with the intellectual arrogance so prevalent among the scholarship of my field. I suppose you must need to be abhorrently arrogant to think an absurd opinion, though it can be defended by scholarship and intellectual reasoning, could actually be correct.

Matt, if I have misinterpreted you, I apologize. If you are suggesting a larger doctrinal commentary that perhaps I have overlooked, could you explain your opinion using simple doctrinal statements and ignoring non-doctrinal scholarship? Or are you actually being critical of the Church rhetoric?

I’m disappointed that this is a 100% intellectual and 0% practical organization from my limited observation. Now this is only my opinion and frankly if I receive emails saying that I used flawed arguments I don’t care. Christopher Bigelow, thank you for your posts. I agree with you on most of your points. Thank you for brining a pragmatic voice to the conversation.

Are any of you aware of a blog, much like Temple Study, where practical doctrinal conversation takes place? Where are all of the doctrinal scholars hiding? I am new to the LDS blogging world and would much enjoy a push in the right direction.
Tasithoughts Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 7:18 AM
A very well thought out out piece. I am sure it will get many reactions, some preatty emotional considering the topic. However, the LDS Church’s tenet of revelation is its strongest point of survival. I believe that it is conceivable given certain circumstances that gay marriage can be acceptable within the church. However, certain conditions wiuld have to exist and it would be necessary for the church to adopt such a policy. Plural marriage was dissolved under the threat of the Church being dissolved. The Blacks in the Priesthood came about because of the needs associated with growth. What triggers would favor gay marriage in the church would have to be compelling enough to reverse the official stance that has been made and must clearly be seen as divinely directed.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Chad,

Perhaps I’m wrong, but aren’t you saying:

arguments you agree with = logical, sound

arguments you disagree with = arrogant, wrong
Jon Butler Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 1:56 PM
Eugene #53
Yes, I agree
Jon Butler Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 3:36 PM
Pete Pratt #54
If what you feel to assert is true, there are some interesting points that could be looked at that, can be verified with a little intence study, that could cause you to question further.
1. The little known(or not so little known now) ordinance of sealing men to men in the Nauvoo period, which came to be known as the law of adoption after Joseph’s death but looks to me like Joseph initiated it.
2. Two years and nearly eight months after Joseph Smith jr. was killed, in Council Buffs,Iowa Brigham Young was organizing his family company (Feb. 16 1847) which consisted in part of the promises by some men to be adopted to him, as witnessed by wilford Woodruff. The nature of these relationships as near as I can gather were that these men were covenenting with Brigham to have him as their father thus setting up a patriarchal heirarchy. Of course Brigham’s biological sons and daughters would be included as well as his wives.
Other brethern of the apostleship were doing this also around this time.
This must have created quite a stirr among some there because Brigham had a vision or dream of Joseph Smith that night (the evening of Feb.16 and 17 in which Brigham recounts in his Manuscript history of Feb 23 1847. One statement Brigham makes is very telling in this entry. “I said ‘Brother Joseph’ the brethren you know well better than I do; you raised them up and brought the Priesthood to us. The brethern have a great anxiety to understand the law of adoption or sealing principles and if you have a word of counsel for me I should be glad to receive it.”
Brother Joseph doesn’t answer in technicalities, but does tell Brigham to tell the people in about six times snd ways of utterance, to get and keep the spirit of the Lord and by telling them to keep their hearts open to the Holy Ghost, and how to know this spirit of the Lord.
3. The brethern who found themselves to some degree dissenting from the interpretation of Brigham Young on Feb 16, had good cause I say because of their ernest study and reflection of the Book of Mormon, and scriptures in the D&C like section 76;94&95.
4. This interpretation of Brigham Young became so troublesome that by 1894 Church President Woodruff discontinued the ordinance of adoption.
It looks like to me the church collectively did not muster the necessary “spirit of the Lord” Joseph urged Brigham to convey in 1847.
Eugene Kovalenko Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 4:16 PM
Rabbi Gershon #68, I very much agree with your observation that sister institution Community of Christ will likely continue to lead their big Utah LDS brother institution in progressive policies regarding same sex marriage, as well as women’s rights and priesthood equality. As they say: “We have learned to see Joseph through the eyes of Jesus rather than see Jesus through the eyes of Joseph.”
DavidH Says:
August 5th, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Chad,

Take a looks at http://www.ldsblogs.org for a variety of blogs with differing levels and viewpoints regarding doctine.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 6:32 PM
RE: Comment # 74; I guess I do not really understand your quote. It is my humble opinion that the Utah LDS are a people who seek truth and the Way of YHVH. They are much closer theologically to us Jews than are the more Protestant Community of Christ (RLDS) Church, even though there are deep and serious differences. I would think that the LDS would see Jesus through his Jewish origins, yet, their understanding of Jesus would be from their own unique Mormon Story.
As a Jew, I see Jesus as my brother, yet as a rightful heir to the throne of King David which qualified him to be called Messiah ben David. He did not need to do miracles for a Jew to be able to see him as a Messiah figure, one of many. That he failed in his mission is readily apparent in the texts about him. As Jesus was a Jew, he must have also been married. And if he really did conduct the trial on the woman caught in adultery, he must have been a rabbi. Much that is written about the real Jewish Jesus is wrong and represents a view that brings in Greek and Persian concepts that really do not do the historical Jesus justice.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 6:40 PM
You Utah Mormons are the only Christians that I know of who seriously thought about some of these thing during your Apostolic Period (1844-1895), and dared to bring Jesus closer to his historical reality. I admit that I have not read everything that the early Mormon Elders wrote about Jesus or about the Jews, but this I do know, the first land for the building of a Jewish synagogue in Utah was GIVEN to the Jewish community by Brigham Young. The first Jewish cemetery was on land granted as a gift by the LDS Church. The Jewish community gave several thousands of dollars for the building of the Salt Lake temple. We have a bond.
David Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 10:11 PM
I’m afraid the revelation has already been recieved:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
David Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 10:13 PM
The revelation has already been recieved and read in sacrament meetings the world over:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
David Says:
August 6th, 2008 at 10:15 PM
You are very good at describing our culture and its different families. You’re not nearly as willing to describe what God describes will bring the greatest happiness.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
Texan Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 2:56 AM
To #2 Christopher: I think you are out of your mind if you truly believe the church will fold under pressure of gay marriage. The Bible condemns the sin, but says to love the sinner, and that is what the church teaches.

There is no way we ‘will find faithful Mormons leaving the big metropolitan areas, especially on the coasts, and gathering together in places for safety and protection from the storm. You may even find the church itself officially disenfranchised or outlawed at some point, but if so then it will continue on an underground basis.’

I don’t know where you are getting your info, but you need to find a new source.

You might also read The Family: A Proclamation to the World. It will probably answer some question for you.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 10:26 AM
David, I think it would be more interesting–for even you–to discuss not WHAT the proclamation says, since we’re all familiar with it, but instead WHY it says what it does. What are the underlying principles? What are its applications and exceptions? How does it square with biological/social/spiritual reality? If it doesn’t always line up, why not? And what’s the best solution?

An orthodox voice is always welcome and too often missing in these discussions. But if that voice just copies and pastes a statement we all have on our walls already…..it doesn’t further the discussion at all.
Jon Butler Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 11:45 AM
David #78
Anyone can write an edict conditioned by modern changes in culture, and even mix it with bits and pieces from the fountain head and those close to the fountain head of the movement.

It seems to me that from my thoughful study of the “beginnings of mormonism” where by far the most revelation came, that relationships in time and in eternity pertain to the Church of the Firstborn. One verse of scripture from this “beginning of mormonism”, vs 7 of section 132 in the D&C, well provides the dimmentions of how these relationships are based and doesn’t exclude anyone or group.
Rabbi Gershon Steinberg-Caudill Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 5:26 PM
David, I agree that “children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony.” This is one reason why I support my Gay friends who have adopted to join them in their 20 year relationship that they already consider a “spiritual marriage.”
As for “the revelation has already been given,” nu, we know from past history that you are given only as you are willing to receive. When you are ready to accept gay marriage, just as when you were ready to receive Blacks in the Priesthood, you will receive the direction from YHVH to do so. I know it will happen, may it come speedly and in my lifetime.
Barry Schneider Says:
August 7th, 2008 at 9:23 PM
Comment # 57 by Larry Mann
“As to the sage advice of Levi Peterson, he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s right on: what will make the Church ?¢Ç¨?ìpeculiar?¢Ç¨¬ù finally is not being anti marriage equality, but supporting and defending and promoting healthy, productive relationships for everyone, irrespective of sexual orientation.”

Now I’m confused. Armand Mauss states in the above quote that peculiarity is achieved when a body moves towards seperateness and militancy; Away from assimilation. So which which is it? We’re doomed to peculiarity not matter which course we take.

Now there is one other possible “inevitability” that I haven’t seen mentioned. That the movement does not assimilate and pressure becomes so intense that it is either forced to leave (like Abraham), or is removed (like Enoch). But of course those are just fables! Right?
Sid Says:
August 8th, 2008 at 7:42 AM
I believe the real reason behind the anti-gay rights position the church has taken is mainly to protect their belief that sexual relations are only permitted within the bounds of marriage, between a husband and wife. If gay people get married, in some sense, their expressions of love could be construed by some that they are no longer living in sin. I believe this is most troubling to the church.

This is clearly a more difficult pill to swallow for the church than polygamy or the blacks receiving the priesthood. Nonetheless, I too hold out for the day that we treat all humans with the same respect and love God has for us all.

For all you doubters out there, just what does the saying,”With God all things are possible” mean?
Sid Says:
August 8th, 2008 at 8:07 AM
If the great commandments are to love God and our neighbors as ourselves, then the great sin would be to withhold love – from anyone. Never did Jesus give us a reason or an example to reject or place one human being over another. By taking away rights that you and I enjoy for moral reasons in nothing more than a majority deciding who we are better than.

In the proclamation the wording does say that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. I agree that it is. But you cannot infer that statement means to exclude relationships that are different. It is merely a statement of fact which the church believes. It says nothing of homosexual relationships.

In cases like this, I find it better to defer to the great commandments. I will be eternally grateful that my gay son agreed to this horrifying challenge in the pre-existence to give me the opportunity to learn true charity.
Rick Jepson Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Actually, that’s just the scenario that Chris describes in the other thread: Am I a Sheep or a Goat.

How, though, does that square with historical reality? If we still had a racist ban in place, you can be sure that we’d be under a tremendous amount of scruty and pressure….but we don’t. Same for polygamy.

Considering that we’ve shown a careful balance with society throughout our brief history, I have a hard time picking any one current stand as the one we’re going to stand fast on until the end of the earth.
Jason Bonham Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Chad,

I think you make a great point. My thoughts in reading this is that Matt seems to approach the LDS church as an organization who primary goal is to appease enough people to be successful. Not a religious organization. He uses the manifestos to make his point, as if the decisions themselves operate in a vacuum, tot

Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part II (7)
- Ted on: Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part II
- Chris on: Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part II
- Kurt Gillespie on: Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part II
Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part I (4)
- Hope Wiltfong on: Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part I
- Chris on: Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part I
- Ryan on: Glenn Beck: Rough Stone Roaring Part I
Biological Evolution: Toward a Reconcilliation of the Science and Our Faith (16)
- Mike Harris on: Biological Evolution: Toward a Reconcilliation of the Science and Our Faith
The Fourth Path: Gay, Mormon, Celibate (114)
- Riley Cooper on: The Fourth Path: Gay, Mormon, Celibate
Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, Amerigo Vespucci, & Me (16)
- Abraham on: Glenn Beck, Cleon Skousen, Amerigo Vespucci, & Me
Divine Malfeasance (5)
- TheIsabeli on: Divine Malfeasance